Disciplined Choices: The Search for Good Habits

 I seem the remember reading somewhere that it takes 3 months to build a new habit. I assume that was a good habit because a bad habit takes only a few seconds in my experience! And therein lies the problem. As far as I can tell, and from my own experience, some good habits don't just take time to become fixed, they take discipline. A lot of discipline, and quite a bit of failure too.

I'd argue that failure is possibly an intrinsic part of the process of learning the importance of discipline. You learn, through failure, that will power is the stuff of dreams whereas discipline belongs to the world of reality. Some people think that the two are synonymous, but I'm not convinced. 

When I changed my eating habits some years ago I was told I must have a lot of will power, but that simply wasn't true. In fact I'd say I had very little will power at all. What I did have was a goal, some data and the ability to make disciplined choices. Every day began with a disciplined choice and proceeded with a series of discipline choices. No magic bullet, no trying to suppress cravings. Just a series of choices.

Any good habits I now have are sustained by disciplined choices. That's the essential difference between good and bad habits. Bad habits take no discipline at all. Good habits demand continued vigilance. It's so easy to skip a day which then becomes two days and so on. Being lazy takes no effort, dragging yourself out of bed on a cold, wet, dark November morning to run or walk a few miles requires a massive effort for most of us. Who wouldn't rather curl up under a warn blanket than have freezing rain driving into your face? 

So how do you become a disciplined choice maker? At the risk of sounding trite or simplistic, you just do it. You set a goal, and then make decisions that support that goal. If you want to walk 10k steps a day, then make choices that help you achieve that goal. It might mean getting up 30 minutes earlier so you can walk to the station rather than catch the bus or get a lift. 

Being a disciplined choice maker goes beyond weight loss or exercise or giving up smoking etc. It can be about something as simple of developing a new skill, learning a language. Or it could be about becoming an encourager rather than a critic, reading 10 books a year, keeping a journal. Whatever it is I'm pretty sure that it will take discipline to achieve.

And when you fail? Well you just start over. Every day is a new opportunity to make new choices. If you make it all about will power it becomes easy to succumb to the idea that you just don't have enough of it to succeed. On the other hand everyone has the capacity to make disciplined choices. Even you. Even me.

Thinking about being coachable

Having finished my Sunday stint of coaching tennis I was sitting down with a cold drink pondering the characteristics of what it means to be coachable. These things don't just apply to tennis, they cross over into every area of life where we are learning. So it's important that we are coachable wherever we are and whatever we are doing. The uncoachable person is surely doomed to keep repeating errors and mistakes without ever learning any lessons.

So what would make your list of coachable assets?

My list is currently quite random. In fact I haven't thought it through at all. I'm doing it as I write! The first thing that comes to mind is a willingness to be taught. Unless you are willing to learn, coaching has no value. It's not just about listening either. Of course you have to listen, but you also have to apply what you hear. I despair sometimes at the inability some people have to process what they are being told. Okay, so maybe I need to find a better way, a simpler way, to get the point across sometimes. But when you've repeated yourself 100 times and still they revert back to the old pattern you do wonder why they haven't got it yet!

Second would be a positive work ethic. Progress takes work and the better you get the harder you have to work to improve. At first you can make almost quantum sized leaps in a very short space of time. But as you progress those once cosmic strides become seemingly infinitesimally small steps. So you have to be willing to work hard every time you show up.

A third trait would be something along the lines of a desire to improve and learn. What I'm trying to find a word for is an attitude that is tenacious about progress. Stickability might be a good word for it. If you're learning something new you have to deal with disappointment. Something might come easily or quickly. Some things won't. I reckon it's taken me 2 years of fairly relentless practice to take my backhand from a liability, to something that doesn't cost me points and now towards something that can win me points. Overall it's taken 5 years to get to this point and there's still an awfully long way to go. To be honest, after 5 or 6 years of leaning to play tennis I'm only just in sight of the ladder, let alone approaching the bottom rung! If you can't stick at it, you stand no chance of getting to your destination.

Application goes alongside stickability. Practice doesn't make perfect, no matter what you might have been told. I've seen lots of people doing a lot of practice. Practice has to be purposeful and constructive. Only perfect practice makes perfect. Application is taking what you're learning and practicing it with a purpose. I often find myself talking to some of my young tennis kids about doing drills. Some of them don't like it. They think that doing drills isn't playing tennis. I try to help them understand that drills are what make playing tennis possible. That brings me to another characteristic of a coachable person.

You've got to love practice. I have the privilege to practice with some good players. Players I would never get near in a match. What we have in common is a love of practice. When our coach says let's do a drill, we all say, "Which one?" and off we go. We have our favourites. I could happily spend an hour hitting a ball down the centre of the court and never play a single point! I love doing the drills. Even when I'm struggling to keep control of the ball, I keep going. It's the only way to improve. And even at my age I get excited when I manage to do a drill well. You should have seen the smile on my face when I made 100 consecutive cross-court forehands with a single ball!

Well that's five I've thought of as I write. I'm sure there are more, or maybe just a more refined way of describing the ones I've outlined. Perhaps some don't transfer into other arenas, but I think most would.

What I've learnt from becoming a coach and being coached is that even the best coaches can't coach the uncoachable. If I'm not ready to learn, apply myself, practice and put everything into each session, then I'm in danger of becoming one of the uncoachables. I'm not ready to let that happen.

Friday 9th September. Time to move Parliament and Grammar Schools

Two things have caught my eye this week in the news. The first was the announcement of the cost to restore the Palace of Westminster and the second was the government's plan to re-introduce Grammar Schools.

The Westminster building restoration is an interesting one and I read quite a few comments about it when an online petition popped up suggesting that a new parliament building more fit for purpose should be built elsewhere in the country. I think that's an idea worth considering. Stepping aside for a moment from the high cost of restoring the current building, moving to a new location and a purpose-built facility might not be a bad idea. Of course it might be too radical an idea for MP's to take. But just think about the potential upside of having a parliament centrally located in the country. Accommodation could be purpose-built, no more need for second homes, easier access to the wider constituency and a move away from a perceived Souht-East, London-centric bias. Moving Parliament to somewhere like Leeds or Sheffield might just be the radical kind of thing we need.

I doubt that the institution will go for it. Too many traditions. But what an opportunity to do something different and leave some of the stuff behind that at time seems to hold back progress. A new parliament, a new second chamber, a new democracy? Food for thought.

And then there's the Grammar School debate. Announcements to be made, opportunities to be had. Really? I came through the Grammar School system. It is not the panacea this government appears to want it to be. The problem remains selection. There were without doubt kids in the lowest "set" for maths for example who were easily being out performed by kids at the local Secondary Modern School. Their future would be decided by the old CSE and ours by the old 'O' Level (or GCE). Is that what we want for Secondary Education in the 21st Century?

Theresa May says that school selection happens by house price these day, but is going back to an 11+ the solution? House prices are high in the catchment area of the perceived good schools. What if we invested in making all schools good schools? By that I don't necessarily just mean academically good. I just wonder to whom has Mrs May been talking. It's easy to look at the evidence and presume that Grammar schools are the answer, but surely the question is far more complex than simple charts of GCSE results can provide as an answer. Reintroducing Grammar schools limits the choice of school by exam rather than house price. It simply shifts the goal posts.

If my memory is telling me the truth, then as I recall the last two years of my primary education was all about preparing for the 11+. It was going to be the defining moment of my educational life. Passing would ensure opportunity and success, failure would consign me to a second level life. I even remember the teacher coming after the first set of tests (the old 11+ was spread out over two or maybe even three days) and announcing that none of us was likely to pass given our performance the first day. Looking back I can't see how he would have known that unless he'd marked the papers the previous night and I don't think that is how it worked. Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't the most useful or encouraging approach.

So I'm far from convinced that Grammar Schools are the answer to our educational system's weaknesses. Perhaps a proper evaluation of the Comprehensive system needs to be undertaken to assess how best we can serve every pupil and not just those who are either blessed with academic skills or whose parents can afford to to buy a house in the favoured catchment area. Add to that a greater sense of the value of education across society and not just as a vehicle for social mobility and maybe we can move towards a truly comprehensive form of secondary education.

What can football learn from rugby?

It's easy to compare the England football team and the rugby team and point out the differences. Failure versus success makes for an easy target. But amidst the humour and banter, there's an interesting perspective to be considered. After a remarkably successful tour following a Grand Slam win of the annual European Six Nations, England rugby is setting higher goals.

Okay so far, but this is what Eddie jones said in an interview post beating the team previously ranked 2 in the world (England have taken that spot now):

“I’m going to go on the Tour de France for a bit and watch how Orica GreenEDGE prepare, probably next weekend,” Jones said. “I’m keen to have a look at what they do because I’ve got to get better. If the team’s not consistent, then our coaching’s not good enough. I’ve got to get better and our coaching staff have got to get better. The next two months are about us getting better and then planning our strategy going forward.

Read that again: “I’m keen to have a look at what they do because I’ve got to get better. If the team’s not consistent, then our coaching’s not good enough. I’ve got to get better and our coaching staff have got to get better.

I don't wish to draw a conclusion about the management of English football, after all Eddie Jones is not your typical rugby coach, but his example is interesting. I wonder if the new England football manager will seek out EJ to see what he can learn from someone who, in a few short months, has begun a process of change that has produced some amazing results.

There's talk in the media about how damaged the England players are over their performance and consequent exit form the Euros, perhaps they need to talk to their rugby counterparts who failed abjectly less than 12 months ago and have now done what South Africa were the last to over 40 years ago and that no other England side have ever done as far as I know.

Whatever is wrong with England's football team, players and coaches could do worse than send a bit of time with their Twickenham cousins.

Don't over-complicate the analysis

Reflecting on Black-Box thinking got me thinking about the process of analysis in which we become involved when we're trying to improve. It made me wonder if we don't sometimes over-complicate the process or more likely over-analyse things.

When I go to my practice sessions I usually go with a plan of sorts. I'll often think about it as I drive to the courts (you knew I was talking about tennis didn't you!). I might think about how I've been playing and what I want to try or where I want to focus my practice. We tend to do a series of drills planned by the coach, and I usually have something simple, almost generic in mind. It might be footwork, it might be contact point, it might be balance. It might even be a decision to hit cross-court or focus on my backhand.

I rarely have more than one or two things in my mind, and there are times when the plan goes out the window because the session opens the door to something I hadn't thought about. Other times I'm hitting so poorly that I have to ditch the plan in favour of focussing on the really basic principles of hitting the ball!

The things is, when you're actually playing a match, there isn't time to do detailed error detection and progressive correction. You just have to fix it, change something, find a way to get things working. That's one of the great joys and challenges of a game like tennis and also one of its great frustrations!

So keep it simple. Fix one thing. Change one thing. Don't fill your mind with all sorts of stuff. Don't try and check your footwork, body-work and racquet work in at the same time. Get your feet moving first, then your body and then your racquet.

I met a golf pro once who used to talk about the guy that sits at the front of your head and messes with your swing by asking if your grip is right, your take-away smooth, the club head doing whatever it's supposed to do. Too many things to think about. He used to say, "Give him one job to do." That one job might be to make sure you focus on the contact point until after the ball has gone, or it might be to get yourself balanced before you swing.

You'll be amazed at the difference it can make when you don't over complicate the process. After all, if you get the process right, everything else will fall into place. The ball will go where you mean to send it. Outcome follows process, so always focus on making the process work, and the best way to do that is by keep it as simple an uncomplicated as you possibly can.

What do you do when you're under pressure?

Wandering around a certain online bookshop, I found myself scanning a book about performing under pressure. I haven't decided whether I want to read it yet or not, but it's sure to show up on my "recently viewed" items for a while, so I can always go back for it. I thought it might be interesting from a tennis playing perspective and from a therapy point of view too. The later because as a therapist you feel the pressure to diagnose a problem and find a solution when a client presents with an issue.

Everybody knows that pressure impacts performance. Some people seem to deal with it far better than others, but no one is immune to the effects pressure has on our ability to do whatever it is we are trying to do. In fact the evidence apparently suggests that everyone performs worse under pressure than they would normally be able to do.

If you play sport competitively then this will not be news to you. )Neither will it be news if you spend some of your time doing presentations of any sort, or leading meetings, organisations or working to a deadline.) If that sport is a solitary activity like tennis or golf, then you are quite alone with the pressure.

So how do you cope? It's always struck me that you need a strategy. I was talking to a tennis friend some time ago, and they were quite surprised that I said that every time I prepare to serve or receive on the court, I do so with a plan in mind. I might not execute the plan, but at least I have one! The plan might be simple: get the ball in play, or it might be a little more detailed: first serve wide, second shot cross court to the other side third shot down the line to finish. Whatever it is, there's always something I'm going to try to make happen. Doing this doesn't make me play any better (sadly) but sometimes it stops me trying too hard or trying to hit the high risk shot when it's not necessary.

So what might a strategy for coping under pressure look like?

In the book I was scanning there were a series of chapter headings that I suspect are the authors' distilled wisdom on the matter.

• Confidence
• Optimism
• Tenacity
• Enthusiasm

Now, I haven't read the book, but these four words seem to form an interesting strategy. How would you turn them into a plan? It strikes me that it might boil down to a simple approach that starts with a basic assumption that there is no reason at all that your plan shouldn't work. Normally we're beset by doubts about the plan we have. We see all the things that could go wrong and almost expect at leafs one of those things to occur. If you were to stand by the tee on a golf course that requires you first shot to avoid a lake on the left side of the fairway, you'd probably see a lot of shots veer sharply to the left and disappear below a ripple of water. 

At this point you'll probably hear the unfortunate golfer declare, "I knew that would happen,"  rather than, "I didn't expect that!" The point is simple, we tend to expect the worst outcome rather than the best. Perhaps "confidence" is about setting your mind on your ability to achieve the best outcome. If you can't imagine yourself hitting the best outcome target, then look for a next best alternative rather than the worst case scenario. For example, it's 30-40 and you're serving. What's your plan? My best outcome plan would be a wide sliced serve taking my opponent right out of court and giving me an easy second shot into an open court. But what if I've missed the last 3 or 4 wide serves? If I can't imagine myself hitting that wide serve I might go for a body serve instead. On the other hand, I might still go for the wide serve because I know I can do it and when I do it right it's a very good serve indeed!

I guess this is where optimism kicks in. Confidence assures me that I can do this because I know my abilities, optimism encourages me because it expects the best outcome. Tenacity and enthusiasm suggest something about holding onto the self-belief that comes from confidence, even if the plan doesn't work this time. I'm not quite sure what I understand enthusiasm to be in the context, I'll have to read the book to find out!

Building nuclear power stations is not the best solution

Listening to George Osborne you might be wondering why we haven't been building nuclear power stations on a regular basis for the last 40 years. His declaration that the new station to be built with Chinese investment, underwritten by UK taxpayers of course (we wouldn't want anyone taking a financial risk without a taxpayer bailout clause now would we), would produce clean energy is nay part of the story.

While it's true that a nuclear station does not produce greenhouse gases, they do produce waste that takes a long time to become safe. We have to store it in steel containers, in water before we encase it in concrete and bury it somewhere. Okay, there are probably a few more options, but don't be fooled, radioactive waste takes a long, long time to become safe. In some cases we're talking about not just a decade or two but several millennia. 250 millennia in at least one case before it become half as dangerous as it is now.

So while there are no CO2 emissions and other nasties being pumped into the atmosphere, don't think it's all plain sailing when it comes to nuclear power. There is a price to pay. Nuclear power is no panacea to solve our energy needs. We need some joined up thinking. Renewables have to be part of that plan, and a big part of the plan. I know there are issues with the costs of producing energy from renewable sources, but which would you prefer, cheap energy that has a lasting legacy in the environment, or the development of an energy strategy that will use a wide variety of generating programmes?

At university, all those years ago (next year it will be 40 years since I started my degree in Chemistry and environmental Science) a friend of mine had a T-shirt carrying a simple message: The only safe fast breeder is a rabbit. I'm not sure if today's nuclear station fall into the fast breeder category or not, but the message might still have a degree of pertinence.

Olympic Legacies and Participation in Sport

It's in the news again, the Olympic legacy. Questions about falling participation in sport and what to do about it are once again on the table and no one seems to have an answer. Well it might be simplistic but maybe the expectation that simply having a major sporting event in the capital city would somehow inspire the generations to get up and have a go was somewhat presumptuous. Given that we have a lot of televised sport available and that hasn't inspired a generation, then two weeks of varied athletics was unlucky to reshape our participation overnight, or even over a few years.

I think there are some fundamental things wrong both in the way we engage people in sport and the access to sport that is available. Take tennis. Tennis clubs are not alone in being fairly inaccessible places. Not because they are geographically difficult to find, but because you have to cross the threshold of the unknown. And let's face it, they can be snobby too. Golf clubs are the same.

Second, most sports are technically demanding. Kicking, throwing or hitting a ball isn't difficult, but doing it consistently is hard. When you do a tennis coaching course, one of the things they get you to do is to try hitting with your non-dominant hand. Give it a try. Whether it's a racket sport or a bat and ball sport, you will suddenly discover what it's like to be a complete beginner. If you're blessed with good hand eye coordination you might just manage to get some sort of contact, but it's hard. It's not exactly the same as it would be as a true beginner, but it gives you a good indication.

So sport is hard, physically, mentally and emotionally. I was watching an under 10's tennis tournament the other day. Lots of tears and tantrums on show. These kids are still in the very early days of learning to play, but somehow the one thing they seem to have learned really well is how to put themselves under enormous pressure to win and be the best all the time. So they have a bad day or they lose a match. Someone needs to help them understand it's not the end of the world and that winning isn't the only measure of success. It is tough. I've got a match today and I know how hard I will be on myself and I'm an adult!

I think we need to find a way of helping people fall in love with sport before we get them participating and maybe even competing. Once we get people loving the idea of taking of part then we can get them moving. I don't run much at all these days, not the long distance stuff. Actually it was never very long, 5 or 6 miles at the absolute maximum. My knees tend to complain after a couple of miles now and the last time I did a 5k (I've gone metric in the last few years) was about 6 months ago just before I got a calf injury. But I still love running. If I could run without the knee pain, then I probably would. How fast would I run? Who cares. How far would I run? It doesn't matter. It would just be for the love of running. I try to carry that into my tennis, but I'm still a bit of a competitor and it's hard not to be overly critical of one's performance in a sport that is rather more technically demanding than plonking one foot in front of the other for 30 minutes or so. Sorry to anyone who is offended by that definition of running, I do know about things like cadence, gait cycles, knee lift etc.

So it seems to me that there are two basic priorities that we need to find a way of addressing if we're going to increase active participation in sport. Firstly we need to generate a love of taking part, of doing something active. Not sure how you do that, but without it I don't think you will get long term involvement. Second we have to improve access. How can people participate if there are no facilities open to them? But along with facilities there needs to be better access to coaching. We're not talking high performance, just people who can help you get started. They need to be trained because coaching is actually a skill. Just because you can play it doesn't mean you can coach.

What might happen if local councils and local sports clubs got together to look at how they could deliver sport in the community. Councils have the land and the space, clubs have the players and volunteers that might be able to make it happen. Perhaps we need to encourage those who are already active to learn some of the coaching skills that can then be put to use outside the clubs and in the public spaces.

"Step Ladder" falls!

So, Sepp Blatter has decided to step down as Fifa president. It's not been an unwelcome decision in many circles, but it was certainly a surprise. He had previously stated his opinion that he was the man to restore confidence in the organisation, but given that the fall out we are seeing reflects badly on his tenure, it was difficult for anyone except Mr B to see how he could possibly sustain that argument.

It would be wrong at this point to assume that Fifa is the only world governing body is sport that has elements of corruption in it. Doping scandals in cycling, match fixing in cricket, allegedly tampered water at the Rugby World Cup back in 1995. Not forgetting athletics as a whole and all it has faced over the years. Even as I edit this post the breakfast news is running a story about the Panorama programme about drug taking over decades in athletics. Corruption is not just about officials taking payments to vote in favour of one candidate or another.

Having said that, the list of charges being brought against Fifa officials is startling, but maybe not that surprising. Are we actually surprised that where there is a large amount of money sloshing around, there is widespread bribery and corruption. The whole debacle over the staging of the World Cup in Qatar probably raised more suspicions than any other international sporting decision. 

My favourite quote so far in this whole sorry mess that brought a smile to my face came from one of the UK's football leaders. Commenting on Sepp Blatter's term as president, they said:

"He's been a fantastic leader, but arguably one that probably stayed on a little too long. 

"Let's place credit where credit is due. He's been at the helm and taken world football to be what it is today."

And what would that be? In the eyes of many it is the most corrupt and broken organisation in the world. Not the best CV for it's leader. It's almost like suggesting that the leaders of the world's financial institutions did a great job taking us into the worst economic recession of the modern era since the Great Depression. Let's hope they meant something rather more positive than that when they said it!

As each day reveals more allegations and even confessions, it begs the question of where does world football go from here. I wonder too whether criminal prosecutions will precipitate a root and branch clean up or just drive the truth deeper underground. Perhaps there needs to be some degree of amnesty that would allow the truth to be disclosed and a new start made to overhaul the organisation. How you balance such an amnesty against prosecuting crime is something prosecutors and governing bodies will need to work out.

Oh, and by the way, it was Hugh Dennis who once suggested Sepp Blatter sounded like "Step Ladder". Just in case you were wondering about the title!!

What do you air in public?

The recent UKIP airing of opinions about Nigel Farage and the decision to allow the publication of private letters from Prince Charles both make me wonder about our tendency to say in public what might be better said in private and the odd interest we have in private communication. Unguarded comments in the backs of cars have lost politicians the public vote and maybe it's reduced public debate to some sanitised exchange of broadly similar views that have all been checked by spin doctors and focus groups. Now I'm not suggesting some sort of free for all in the name of freedom of speech or something, but I'm just wondering what impact publication of such things has and what value there is in so doing.

Then there are the articles written in newspapers by the likes of Patrick O'Flynn. Open letters are one thing, but why would you put that in a newspaper? Why wouldn't you sit down in a room and talk it through, sharing your concerns in a constructive way rather than making a public issue of it? Surely there are better ways of airing these things than through column inches. Same goes for Kevin Pietersen and other autobiographers who seem to want to "put their side of the story" before anything else. There's a time to let it go.

Yesterday I was in the queue in my local convenience shop and I overheard the person in front saying some amazingly horrible things about another person. Their shooping partner did nothing to suggest that it was time to turn down  the volume and take a breath. Not overhearing was not an option given the volume at which things were being said. Not shouted, but loud enough to make sure anyone nearby got a clear picture of what she thought of her step-mother! The thing is, I didn't need to know these things. That she didn't like her is okay, telling the world is, in my opinion, not.

It's a difficult balance, but stopping, engaging brain, asking yourself if this really needs to become public knowledge, might stop a few bridges going up in flames.

Post Election

Well the election is over and between the gnashing of teeth on one side and the smiling faces on the other we find ourselves facing a return to one party government after all the speculation about who might work with whom on the roundabout of coalition politics. It always struck me as an odd thing that no one was suggesting that one of the lessons learnt over the last five years was that it is possible for  coalition to work, and that coalition politics are not as scary as some would have us believe. I wonder whether David Cameron is actually quite pleased about the whole coalition thing because his party seems to have got off scott-free whilst the Lib Dems have taken the blame! Only time and history will show us what affect the Lib Dems had in shaping the polices and practices of the last five years. I hope history is kinder to Nick Clegg et al than the electorate appears to have been.

I then wonder about the rash of resignations. I worry that this feeds the mentality that General Elections are primarily about electing a Prime Minister. All those questions in the media about who looked and sounded "prime-ministerial" always made me feel uncomfortable at some level. We do not yet have a president. We do not directly elect a Prime Minister. 

And then there were the polls. Apparently the pollsters were humiliated as one newspaper headline put it and now there is even a call for an inquiry about why they got their predictions so wrong. Let's hope that isn't publicly funded. I can think of very few greater wastes of money. Polls are polls. People change their minds. They've got it wrong before, they will get it wrong again. It's a glorified guessing game, let's not worry too much about it. Remember, an election is a secret ballot, there is no rule that says you have to tell anyone how you will vote or have voted.

It will be interesting to see whether this government goes a full five years or whether they revert to calling an election when it best suits them. There's also the question of redrawing constituency boundaries, something that happens all the time, but the worrying headline over the last two days was that from the Telegraph that suggested the primary goal of the process will be to keep Labour out of power for decades, New Commons boundaries top Conservative government agenda. The map is scary to say the least, but the numbers and percentages seem to imply that even with the changes there would be little difference in the majority. The worry is the intention, if it's true, to use boundary changes to secure winning an election. What does that say about democracy?

And finally, electoral reform. Could it be that the only sensible thing heard from a UKIP candidate was the raising of the question of electoral reform? It's doubtful that such a thing will ever happen, but at least it made me smile. What would be interesting would be to find a way of allowing people to express their party preference as well as their local choice. There is always talk about tactical voting, so we never get a true picture of public opinion. Perhaps that is what the polls actually tell us. They tell us what people generally think more than how they will vote once they enter the polling booth. Ooh look, I might just have saved someone a lot of money. No need for an inquiry anymore. Any know where I should send the invoice?

Is it a habit yet?

Well, as I've just tweeted, I passed 2 million steps and 1000 miles yesterday (4th February 2015). I've been recording the data since September 1st and I haven't missed my goal of 10000 steps a day yet. It's a record by some way given that I purposefully took a day off at 104 last time I did the 100 day challenge.

So, apart from some self-congratulatory back slapping, have I formed a habit yet? Actually, I don't think so. A habit is something you do almost automatically. It's a response, something you do because you always do it. It happens without much predetermined thought. Getting up and going for a walk everyday takes discipline, so I guess you could call it a disciplined habit, but most of the habits we do without thinking require no discipline at all and are usually bad habits. Maybe all habits that require no thought are bad habits.

No, habit is not the tight word to describe what I'm currently doing. At least not the right word for me. If I think it's a habit I'll more than likely stop thinking about it and that inevitably leads to a breaking of the habit. So I'll continue to call it a disciplined choice. There are days when I really don't feel like hitting the mean streets of Ockendon and pounding away at my goal. But I choose to do it.

Take yesterday for example.

I had two funerals to do and a visit to make. That doesn't sound like a lot of work I know, but funerals carry their own stress for me and I like to be there early so I'm settled and ready. Having said that, at yesterday's second funeral I managed to leave a candle in the chapel office and had to nip out doing a piece of music to get it! I did tell the family what I was doing, just so they didn't think I was running away! I've also got a nasty cold and I've got my torn calf muscle. Add to that the temperature and the fact that I didn't get ready to go out walking until gone 5:00pm and I definitely didn't feel like doing it at all.

But I did. I made he disciplined choice to exercise. Even with base layers, mid-layers and top layer on it was still cold. I wore a hat and gloves and I still found myself having to take some painkillers for the ache that gets in your face when it's been too cold for too long. This is why it's a disciplined choice and not a habit. You have to choose to do something like that, it doesn't come naturally. Of course once you're into your stride you mostly forget about everything else. You remember how much you get out of simply being outside and the pleasure of the walk or run. holding onto that memory is what helps making the following day's discipline choice to get moving.

Speaking of which, it's time to pull on the trainers and get out there again. Normally I'd be off to tennis, but I'm rehabbing my calf, so no tennis this week. All my steps will have to come from running or walking in circles.

Honours for some

Well, once again the honours system has shown itself, or at least those who decide these things, to be wonderfully out of touch with reality. Amongst the often strange and sometimes unfathomable awards there of course a number of unsung heroes and heroines who deserve the recognition of a honour, but then there are those that make no sense at all.

The one that bugs me most this time around is the singling out of only two members of the England Women's rugby team. When the men's team managed to win the World Cup in 2003, they all got something, along with other members of staff. Clive Woodward got a knighthood! But for the women only two players appear on the list. Why?

This isn't about fairness, it's about recognising that a team won not one or two individuals. Something the sport realises by giving every member of the squad a medal rather than just those who run out onto the pitch on a given day. Of course it's not always been that way. England footballers who played in the 1966 squad only got a winners medal if they played in the final, and only recently at the Paralympics have the support runners been awarded medals alongside their competing partners.

So perhaps it's time whoever it is that advises those who decide who gets honoured and who doesn't ups their personal game and makes sure that when it's a team effort the team get the recognition they all deserve.

An open letter about Gaza

Much of my blog is mundane, even trivial. A random collection of partially worked out thoughts and ideas, reflections and stories. Occasionally I stumble into something thought provoking and even more occasionally articulate something thoughtful in response. I range from theology to sport, work to leisure, politics to biomechanics. It's wide, it's eclectic and it's me.

Some things bother me deeply, Gaza is one of those things. It's a mix of politics, theology and centuries old issues and rivalries. Palestine is not the only region of the world where this is true, but it does evoke all sorts of responses within the Christian community. As an evangelical Christian I've often been confronted by those within my broad theological fold who support Israel come what may. Citing all sorts of biblical passages, they often seem to have little time for those of us who do not share their perspective.

So I'm going to make my thoughts as clear as possible and risk the retribution that may come my way. Some thoughts will be far from complete, but that's me and I make no apology for thinking out loud.

I am deeply distressed by what I see happening in Gaza. As the body count rises I see no end in sight to the shelling and exchange of fire. By God's grace I hope a ceasefire comes sooner rather than later. Leaders on both sides must accept responsibility for what is happening. I am not so naive as to think one side is more to blame than the other, although Israel's response always seem out of proportion to the threat. If you've not seem Jon Snow's moving account of his recent visit to Gaza, then find it and watch it. It raises a lot of questions.

For me, an attitude that supports Israel on the basis of some theological conviction that there is some divine right to the land is both misplaced and highly questionable. Is it not a reasonable reading of Scripture that disobedience has consequences and historically the loss of the land was once a consequence of a failure to obey the Law? Does some eschatological expectation of the Messiah returning through a specific gate really abrogate that principle?

Perhaps we should go one step further and say that given our understanding of the cross and its central role in the redemption story, that the land no longer figures in the same way it once did and that the nation of Israel is now a secular state and not an all important immutable part of God's unfolding plan.

Where the solution lies in such an intractable situation I do not know. While Hamas, and others, continue to dedicate themselves to the destruction of Israel, it's unlikely that the region will be ever see peaceful coexistence, but that does't mean that such coexistence is not on our radar of hope, and in the case of those of us who believe in prayer, on our list of topics that we bring before God.

Tony Campolo has pointed out in the past that God loves Palestinians too. We ought not to forget that truth. Whatever the political right and wrongs, whatever the theological arguments may be, people are dying, children are dying, and personally I believe that grieves the heart of God. Let's not forget that even in the Old Testament, Israel was under instruction to care for the foreigner in its land, and was repeatedly warned about the consequences of not doing so.

So enough is enough. Let governments and organisations around the world do whatever they can to bring an end to the carnage and to work as hard as they can to broker peace among the people of Palestine, and let the Christian community be unafraid of challenging those who need challenging because of either misplaced theology or a sense of guilt over the past.

Competitive Sport in School

Once again (is this an annual debate I wonder) we're having a debate about competitive sport in schools. At least on BBC Breakfast we are. There are those who say life is competitive so get on with with it and there are those who have been put off sport for life because it was, or seemed to be, all about winning and losing.

Now I have to be honest and say that there are times when I've got quite frustrated by those who advocate a completely non-competitive approach to sport at school. Competing is a fundamental part of sport and learning to do so in an honourable and healthy way is a good thing. But, if we fail to recognise that there are many people for whom competing is not the goal, then we are doing them a great disservice by making them think that if you can't win it's not worth the effort in the first place.  We need some perspective. How many children and young people playing sport at school go on to play professionally? Very few. For every 25 children playing tennis at a local club perhaps only 2 or 3 will still be playing in their late teens. Some may return later in life, but many will simply find something else to do with their time, especially when work and other life pressures are added.

So what we need is a strategy that encourages the widest possible participation and that teaches everyone from children to adults that sport is good in and of itself without having to win anything, and that playing sport to improve is just as significant as playing to win something. We need to stop debating competitive versus non-competitive and start discussing participation and the proper place for competition.

And last but not least, those of us who can play need to encourage those who struggle to have fun trying.

An addendum to "Is all sin criminal?"

I've been thinking about my previous post and wanted to clarify something that's really important to me. I'm concerned that some might misunderstand my point just because of the title and so I want take it a little clearer having thought about for a while.

Essentially my point is this: Should we consider all sin (things that we do that do not honour God) to be outside the law?

I want to avoid being misquoted and misunderstood as suggesting that some things that we might call sin out to be called criminal. That's not the case. I just wanted to raise the question of how we understand the relationship between the legal system, the rights of the individual and our theology.

Does that make sense? I hope so!

Maybe I should also add that the real challenge that faces the church is not how we control the state but how we express the kingdom. When our incarnation of the gospel is an expression of exclusion of certain groups of society, then how can we expect them to be reached when we hold them beyond arms length? Are they only allowed to draw near the cross when their behaviour or beliefs are acceptable?

Is all sin criminal?

Without any heart fanfare, the news this morning made mention of the the fact that as from midnight gay marriage becomes legal in the UK (or maybe just England and Wales, I'm not sure). anyway, I was wondering when the first pronouncements might be made about this from those who have spoken so loudly about it in the past and what it says about our society's general decline. Now I've blogged before about how I see the issue and that in my opinion it isn't the ultimate threat to our way of life that some evangelicals would suggest. I'm also not so sure that the floods and storms are necessarily God's angry response to our secular government's decision to pas this measure into law.

And that's the point. We live in a secular society, and the best secular society can do is to protect the rights of all its members, or seek to do so.

In the shower this morning I was thinking about this and wondered how a conversation might go between myself and someone who wanted to understand what I thought about the whole thing. Where would my emphasis be? What questions would I raise and what reasons might I give? In the end, what is my theology, or rather how does my theology work itself out in practise over such an issue.

I remember reading John Stott's Issues Facing Christian Today when it first came out in the early 80's/late 70's. What I took away from that book wasn't necessarily a series of systematic doctrines about certain issues, but rather a way of thinking about things that was hopefully more Biblical than just textual (i.e. based on a broader understanding of the whole Bible than just the direct application of a handful of proof texts). I wasn't thinking about the book in the shower, but it's that thing about facing issues and thinking "Christinanly" about them that's the key.

I wonder if the reason we, as Christians, have got ourselves in a stir over this and other things is that we have confused the idea of what does not honour God (i.e. sin) and what is criminal. It seems to me that while all crime is  a sin, because all crime surely offends God, not all sin is a crime. Think about it for a moment. We don't criminalise lying, except when under oath in a court, but telling untruths is surely listed as dishonouring God. Similarly we don't arrest a couple for setting up home together yet from a biblical perspective we would probably agree that such a choice does not sit comfortably in the context of a desire to live a God-honouring life.

So there you have it. not fully worked out, not all the nuances explored, just a simple thought: Is all sin a crime? You tell me.

Balance the reports please!

As you know I rather enjoy playing tennis. I'm also quite interested in watching it and reading about it. I often go to the BBC website to news of tournaments. But I have to say I'm rather disappointed in the BBC website's reporting of the semi-finals from Indian Wells in the last couple of days. There was an article about Federer and Djokovic. 19 sentences, all as single line paragraphs, detailing the two semi-finals and making references to Federer's new coaching team. Fair enough, not a bad summary of events.

Then I went to read about Li Na's semi-final against Flavia Pennetta. Shorter at 11 sentences, but here's the rub, only 4 of the 11 sentences were actually about the match. 6 were about Federer and Djokovic, 1 about the fact that both finals were on Sunday.

It might sound picky, but I found it really frustrating that whoever wrote the second report thought we need more about the men's final rather than the women's tournament. There wasn't even a mention of the other ladies semi-final.

There's little I can do about it, and I'm not sure I'm going to take it up with the BBC, perhaps I should. It just annoyed me that someone thought a decent report about the ladies matches in their own right would not be enough to make the article worth reading.

Storms, tempest and judgment

If someone asked you if you believed that God was judging the nation through the floods and storms of recent weeks, what would you say? Would you say no in order to avoid being thought of as a religious fanatic, when in fact you rather think the correct answer is yes. Or would you say no and wonder what that says about your view of the Old Testament in particular?

On the other hand you might well say yes because you see God acting in this way in the Bible and see no reason to deny that he continues to to do the same and that in fact the Bible makes it quite clear that judgment is coming and that will take the form of earthquakes and floods because you remember reading that somewhere or you heard it one Sunday night when someone preached about the end times.

Perhaps I should call my insurance company and ask them how the determine whether something is an "act of God". Then again, maybe we ought to remind ourselves that judgment, whatever form it might or might not take, is God's area of expertise and his prerogative, not ours. You'd think sometimes that we believe that we're best placed to make the call, but that would put us at the very least on an equal footing with God if not slightly ahead of him, and that is surely a dangerous position in which to find ourselves! Is it not enough for us to know that one day God will judge and he will do so righteously. Ours is a simpler task: to live lives that honour God. To love others into the kingdom rather than judge them out of it. Sometimes that's messy, sometimes it looks like we're compromising our faith. Jesus was known as a friend of sinners and it wasn't meant as a complement.

I try not to judge anyone. When I was the minister of a local church, something I did for 20 years, I often seemed to end up asking folk who's found themselves in some situation or another whether they thought their situation and the way they were handling it honoured God or not. Rarely did I ever have to point them to a particular verse or passage that talked about their situation. They knew the Bible well enough to work it out for themselves.

Is that enough? I don't know. And for the record, neither do I know whether the recent storms are a result of global warming to divine displeasure. The former is certainly a factor and as to the latter, I haven't asked and God hasn't told me.

How easy is "Sorry"?

Sorry seems to be the hardest word. The vents of the last couple of weeks would seem to bear out the truth of the Elton John and Bernie Taupin song. It seems to me that there are several problems or issues that have become more obvious recently that prevent people from sating sorry. 

The first is the presumption of guilt. If I say sorry that means that I've done something wrong. I am guilty of whatever it is someone chooses to accuse me of doing and I can't afford that to be implied. Second, the is the greater issue of self-justification. I can't afford to say sorry because the truth is my action were irresponsible or impulsive and I don't want to admit that. A third issue is that sorry is no longer enough.

These issues work both ways. We can't' accept an apology because it undermines our right to be wronged, our sense of paranoia or some other undercurrent of self. In essence we can't say sorry or accept sorry because it leaves us vulnerable, defenceless in a world that constantly demands that we justify almost everything we do and at no time do ever make a mistake.

Of course some things are so serious that there has to be something more than a simple sorry, and a sorry without any change in actions is worthless because there's no growth, no acceptance that we need to do something differently no matter how innocent or harmless we think our act or words might have been. Justice is not set aside by the humility of an apology. An apology however admits some culpability, some level of responsibility for the own actions.

It just seems to me that if a sports person who makes an inappropriate gesture acknowledges with hindsight that it was stupid and inappropriate, and that they are truly sorry for any offensive cause, then it would go a long way to resolving the situation. Similarly if one's actions cause offence or are inappropriate then that too can be a cause for expressing sorrow without it become some sort go guilty plea in a media circus driven court.

I'm not saying that sorry makes everything okay. I remember a particular episode on Frasier where Niall and Frasier have a significant issue to deal with when Niall ends up in bed with Frasier's ex-wife. Niall apologises and asks Frasier, "Are we good now?" To which Frasier replies, "No, but we will be."

Sorry is the first step in reconciliation, and maybe a significant step in addressing what happened, why it happened and how to move forward.

I wish sorry wasn't the hardest word, but it seems that it will continue to be so for those who are too afraid to admit their frailty and their need for help to live well with others.