Was invited to debate with Steve Chalke last night on the topic of ‘the Politics of Pentecost’ – which was designed to think about issues of multiculturalism and inclusion over the Pentecost festival.

Steve gave a very interesting opening talk about this, which we then argued over afterwards, drawing in questions from the floor too.

In the relevant bit of Acts 2, the group of believers are gathered when ‘tongues of fire’ come down on them, and they spill out into the street where they are miraculously able to speak to people from all over the world in their local language. Some people think that they’ve just drunk too much, but Peter stands up and denies this, and contends that they are seeing ‘God’s spirit poured out on all people.’

What’s interesting though is that all the people gathered there were Jews. From round the world, yes, but Jews nonetheless. So in fact Peter’s assertion of God’s inclusivity here is bounded, and it takes a massive kick up the backside in Acts 10 for Peter to be persuaded that God accepts non-Jews too. And not just accepts that they can be circumcised and become Jewish – but that they can be fully-functioning believers without any of the Jewish cultural trappings.

The tragedy of church history is that the group of believers went on from this to become institutionalised and ended up drawing up cultural entry-tests for people that still results in large amounts of exclusion, and an even larger perception of exclusion too. Quite simply, people think Christians are bigoted. And for that, Pentecost should be some kind of lament, not celebration, because the situation is so dire.

The question last night turned to what we do to practically engage ‘the other.’ I was struck that the answer was right there in the passage. People thought that Peter and the disciples were drunk. Why was this? It seems to be because they were garrulous. They’d lost some inhibitions and were getting out and talking to people. This is one of the benefits of (moderate) drinking… it gets people talking. I’m not suggesting asking Muslim friends for a beer and pork pie… but the general principle is this: barriers come down when people share food and drink because these are the most ancient rites of sustaining life. No matter who we are, what colour, gender, orientation, background, age – we all need to eat and drink, and where there is food and beverage, there is life to be had.

Feasts are also important because they are temporary – and the feasting / TAZ idea is something I explore in depth in Other.

But there is another axis that struck me last night too. The shadow passage to Acts 2 is the story of the tower of Babel, where people used the best technologies they had – unified language and advanced building skills – to try to reach up and poke the underbelly of heaven. God sent confusion of language to stop that little project – for very strange reasons really.

If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

Thanks for that, God. Nice one. We are perhaps developing  another common language though, one that is seeking to unite all people: it’s the language of the web. Techno-optimists will tell you that social networks are going to lead to peace and love because people will engage ‘the other’ online.

No they won’t. Rather than enabling us to engage those who are different, our social networks actually serve to create sterile virtual communities consisting only of those who agree with us and are like us. Our friendship circles on Twitter and Facebook are not like local villages, where lots of interesting characters interact. They are, in the main, bland mono-cultures. When we do engage with ‘others’ online, what we see is a tendency to ‘flame’ far more easily than we might do face to face, thus ramping up the walls, rather than dissolving them.

So my advice would be this: if you want to engage ‘the other’ in your community, then forget about social networks, other than for arranging physical meetings. And if possible, try to add a little drink and food too.

Until then, think about framing Pentecost this year as a lament for the lack of inclusivity and diversity in most of our churches. And for the high walls and tough entry tests we’ve given people to make sure that the ‘dirty scum’ stay away. Shameful.

Update: audio of the discussion now available here.

Interesting piece on the Today programme this morning, re-visiting the constituency of Smethwick – a safe seat in which was notoriously won by the vile Conservative candidate Peter Griffiths in 1964 following his campaign which ran under the slogan ‘If You Want A Nigger For  A Neighbour, Vote Labour.” Smethwick reacted to chuck out the safe-sitting Labour candidate over their fears about people of other ethnicities – who ‘didn’t live like us whites,’ though Griffiths was told to be expect to serve his time in Westminster as a ‘political leper,’ – something that enraged Labour MPs to sign a motion that this was “a cruel and unmerited slight on lepers.”

On this St George’s day John Humphrys explored what was going on in Smethwick now, over 45 years after that campaign, and found a hugely diverse community… that still had huge worries about immigration. A Sikh – who’s grandparents had moved to Smethwick many years ago – was particularly interesting. He was quite clear: he didn’t want ‘the floodgates to open’ and for loads more immigrants to come in. Why? Not because of the colour of their skin, but because they would take jobs away from British people like him. “Thank goodness,” Humphrys concluded, “we can talk about the issue of immigration without being accused of racism.”

I agree wholeheartedly – it’s wonderful that the foul days of racist language in mainstream politics are over (though they remain very close to the edges). But I was uneasy about the conclusion drawn here, especially with it being St George’s day and thus a celebration of all things good in this fair and pleasant land. My concern is this: once we have accepted that there is just one human race – that colour and creed are no matter and that we are all created equal – then why the tacit acceptance of the economic inequality that still rages? If people are coming to this country because they want a better lifestyle, they want their children to have a good education and better prospects in future, why should we close our doors to them? To me it still smacks of the injustice of Empire: we pillage other lands to make ourselves hugely rich, but then deny those who made us rich the opportunity to share in that wealth. It’s a sort of economic racism: it’s become unacceptable to judge people on the colour of their skin, but remains acceptable to judge them on their economic means. Let’s be clear: rich immigrants have no problems coming here.

I’m not suggesting that there should be no controls on movements of people. I am suggesting that we need to work far harder to improve the lot of people around the world so that inequality is minimised. As we celebrate St George’s day, let’s not forget that this Palestinian Roman soldier turned Christian martyr who stood up for his minority beliefs against the ruling elite is also the patron saint of Catalonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Lithuania, Palestine, Portugal and Russia. So perhaps our thoughts ought not to be of white people or warm beer or cricket. But of fairness, of standing up for the oppressed, of celebrating with Russians, Ethiopians, Greeks, Palestinians and others and committing ourselves to overcoming all prejudice, whether that be to do with race or economic means.

I don’t mention a great deal here about my work as a teacher in London, but a book review in The Observer this weekend made me want to post something.

The thrust of Frank Furedi’s book Why Education Isn’t Educating is well caught in a paragraph in the review, in which Rafael Behr notes:

There has been some new law or initiative every year since [1997 when Blair came to power]: literacy hour, “Every Child Matters”, academy schools, Early Years Foundation Stage, the “Gifted and Talented” programme, personalised learning etc.

This process, Furedi argues, signals a politicisation of education that makes schools responsible for the correction of social ills. As a result, their proper function – as transmitters of the accrued wisdom of humanity from one generation to the next – is squeezed out.

Too bloody right. Having begun teaching in 97/98 it’s been clear over the past decade that the school’s role in loco parentis is now often taken to the extreme. If children are fat then we need to teach them healthy eating. If there are too many teenage pregnancies, teachers need to improve sex education. If children are depressed, or taking drugs, we need to now teach happiness. And if children do not agree with the policies of this government, we need to timetable Citizenship lessons:

By extension, teachers have become mediators in a process of socialisation – policing “values” rather than directing thoughts; a secular political clergy with the education secretary as pope.

Pedagogy, meanwhile, has come to look more like therapy, with motivational and psychological techniques coming to the fore, along with a fashionable horror of allowing children to get bored. Everything must be “relevant”.

The end result of this is a utilitarian curriculum where every minute of lesson time must be accountable for a dollar it will help earn a child when they grow up. Teaching Mathematics as I do I always get the regular question when we open the page to circle theorems or some such: why am I learning this – when am I ever going to use this in my life. And my answer never fails to shock them: you’re never going to bloody well use it.

A lecture on the essential uselessness of education follows: they will never need to know about Macbeth’s wife, never need to know about glacial moraine, never need to know 99% of the stuff that is taught.

What they need to know is how to think, because if they think they are free.

Which is perhaps why the government wants to fill our curriculum with all this nonsense. They don’t want education to be educative. Generations of free thinkers would simply not stand for the crap they are currently allowed to get away with.