Entitlement and Elitism

Many are concerned that today's young people in the West feel 'entitled' - to material goods, to satisfying jobs, to ideal romantic partners. Brought up in reasonable comfort, with the world's knowledge at their fingertips; with parents and teachers doing all they can to ensure minimal difficulties, maximum success, great self-esteem... high numbers of teens and young adults seem to expect life, liberty and happiness to be handed to them on a plate.

At the same time, I'm aware of growing segregation, xenophobia, elitism - call it what you will. when I started writing this, nearly four years ago, there were presidential campaigns in the United States which were becoming more and more bitter as people of each persuasion condemned those of the other party. That's unlikely to change with the coming campaigns this year. But although the United States elections are the most publicised, similar anger and divisiveness happens all over the world.

I scan a couple of news websites on my phone most mornings, and sometimes spend longer during the day reading news articles on my computer. Most of it is negative. So many wars, so much violence around the world. Today's news sites have heart-rending articles about children starving, some of them dying in Ukraine and Palestine. But there are also articles about troops gathering in South American countries, torture and slavery in China, violence in African countries, and more. 

So much hatred. So much bigotry. 

Galatians 5:22 tells us that the 'fruits of the Spirit' are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. That means that those of us who follow Christ, who believe we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, should be demonstrating these things. 

Are Christians generally known to everyone else by these fruits...? Sadly, no. In many cases Christians as well as those of other religions and 'secular' people are involved in destruction, condemnation, unkindness. 

I started thinking about past generations, of the tendency of people to want to feel superior, one way or another. The apartheid system in much of the world - most notably South Africa - genuinely believed that people with pale skin were superior to those with darker skin. 'Ethnic cleansing', and many of Hitler's beliefs were related to this twisted idea that 'white' skins and fair hair are supreme. 

Then there are patriarchal societies around the world which believe that men are not just physically stronger than women, but more intelligent, more capable of making decisions, and that they can treat women however they wish. Even in the supposedly enlightened Western world, it's only in the past hundred years or so that society has recognised that women should be able to vote, to work in professions such as medicine and law, to be paid the same amount as men for doing the same job, to be protected under the same laws that protect men.

Going back a couple of thousand years, since the start of the Church there have been battles, often violent, between those who are convinced they have the right path to God and want to persuade others by force. Jesus, who did nothing wrong - and a great deal that was right - was killed as a criminal. His early followers were persecuted for talking about a new way of love and reconciliation. Then Christianity was given state approval, and started doing its own persecution.

Even further back in history, the Jewish people regularly massacred those of other nations. They believed God was telling them to do so. 

And yet, when God originally called Abraham (in Genesis 12), he chose him so that his descendants could be a blessing to the other nations, not so that they could subdue them. Certainly there were some terrible things that the pagan countries were doing. The Jews, by following healthy dietary and sanitary rules (in a society which knew nothing of germs) were supposed to live long lives and spread God's message amongst those around them. There are some wonderful examples in the Bible: the story of Esther, for instance, or Ruth, of the Jewish people spreading God's love to others. But there are, too, many stories of bloodshed and violence in the Hebrew Bible; I don't pretend to understand them.

The New Testament, however, is much clearer that we who follow Jesus are to be 'salt and light' in the world. We are to be known by our love for one another, and our good example to all. Salt preserves: it slows or even stops decay, and enhances the product that is salted. Light makes darkness disappear: it shows things for what they really are.

Jesus mixed with the most despised people of his time, and was criticised for doing so. He forgave those who broke the Ten Commandments. He healed those considered the lowest of the low. He reached out in love and compassion to everyone he came in contact with, other than the hypocritical and superior religious leaders. He asked for nothing but wholehearted commitment. He gave everything, including his own life.

In the Gospels, and also in some of the letters in the New Testament written to new gatherings of believers, we learn that we of the human race are all of value in God's sight. Whether male or female, Jew or Gentile, we are loved. Whether fair-skinned or dark-skinned, young or old; whatever our gender, or political persuasion, or cultural background, or sexual orientation, we are created in God's image. No 'sin' or error is too great to be forgiven. From those to whom much is given, much is expected.

Yet despite the supposedly enlightened times in which we live, this principle seems to have been lost in today's entitlement world. I've heard of too many young (and not-so-young) people whose philosophy is more along the lines of, 'To those to whom much is given, much more should be given.' 

Certainly our children need to be loved, and to be told that they are of value. Philip Yancey popularised the truth that, 'There is nothing we can do to make God love us more… and nothing we can do to make God love us less.' This is the kind of unconditional love that parents need to communicate to their children. I believe passionately in non-violent and non-coercive parenting, in encouraging our children to find good solutions to problems and to make their own decisions, wherever possible.

And yes, society is, in some ways, more loving and accepting than it was in the past. Women are, in many cultures, recognised for their abilities. Mixed culture marriages are more and more common, and no longer cause raised eyebrows, at least in European countries. It's very good that those with special needs are given opportunities rather than locked away, that those who struggle with academics are given help rather than written off as uneducable. 

But, somewhere amidst the technological revolution and the increase of acceptance of those different from us, we seem to have lost the ability to take responsibility for our actions? Forgiveness and unconditional love don't mean that we should ignore the long-term effects of our children's behaviour. Everyone needs to understand that decisions they make may have consequences: sometimes immediate, sometimes in the long-term future. Perhaps a broken toy can be mended, perhaps not. Whether broken deliberately or by carelessness, a child's actions will have consequences. 

As we help our children see that every action or decision may have an effect or consequence, perhaps they will start to believe us when we tell them that some things will have effects many years in the future. Even such basics as brushing teeth, eating fruit and vegetables or running around outside are important for the child's long-term health. We all make decisions every day, and part of maturity is learning to make positive ones.

I don't think it's healthy, however, to compare a child with others, to push for competition, or to reward them for good 'grades'. I heard of someone recently saying that children needed to be taught to be 'ordinary'. Most of them won't go on to be top CEOs, or Olympic athletes or highly paid entertainers. They - and we - need to learn to be content, sometimes, to be 'good enough' parents, or secretaries, or aid workers, or builders, or whatever our current vocation or role involves. 

It doesn't much matter what career we follow, or what job we do: God wants us to grow into increasingly loving people who are a blessing to others. If we demonstrate the principle that the more we have, the more we should give (whether in material terms, or our abilities) and if we encourage our children and teens to do the same, maybe they will gradually lose the idea that they are entitled to more than those around them. 

What is a Christian writer?

A Christian writer is a Christian who writes. 

Obvious, perhaps. And yet some people assume that a Christian writer is someone who writes Biblical exposition, or perhaps overtly evangelistic or devotional articles or books. 

However, we are Christians because we follow Jesus, and we are writers because we believe God wants us to write. So while our worldview and beliefs should overflow into what we write, this can be subtle or implied rather than obvious. 

Writing for ourselves

We learn to write by writing, rather like a musician learns to play through regular practice. It’s important to write even when we don’t feel like it; to make mistakes and learn to put them right. We can write letters we never send, or poems that we can’t get right, or the beginnings of short stories that go nowhere. Most published writers say that for every accepted article or short story. there are dozens that never emerge beyond their notebooks or computers. 

Most of our writing may never be read by anyone other than ourselves. Another example is a journal, which can be a useful way of recording inner thoughts or venting frustrations. Writing our feelings down is often therapeutic, as well as a good way to start the day. But it would probably not be constructive to show our journals to anyone else. 

We learn to write by reading, too, so we get a feel for language, and the different ways that published writers use it. Musicians, similarly, often go to a range of concerts and listen regularly to music. If we want to understand other people, and reach out to them, we need to discover how they think and what they believe. It has been demonstrated that empathy is developed most strongly in the people who read the most fiction[1]. It enables us to get inside the minds of people in cultures or centuries that we can never experience ourselves. 

Writing for publication

At some point, if we are called by God to write, it is likely that some of our work should have a wider audience, in print or online. Whether a letter to an editor in a newspaper, a short article about a significant moment in our life, or a more ambitious project such as a novel or autobiography, it’s easier than ever to be published nowadays, with many options for online forums, blogs or websites, or for print-on-demand self-published books. 

The late Elsie Newman, who founded our local Christian Writing group in 2007, believed that, as Christians, we are called to live in the world, and - as writers - to communicate with those who are not believers, as well as with fellow Christians. There are many people who wouldn’t ever pick up ‘religious’ books by choice. So we need to engage with ‘secular’ writing: whether websites, magazines, newspapers or books, and introduce a Christian worldview in a way that provides hope and encouragement.  

In 2007 she wrote this:

As a Christian, I have to ask myself a few searching questions:

* Am I sure God wants me to use my time in this way?

* Have I something to say, in whatever form, that is relevant to the present world, both Christian and non-Christian?

* Is my writing professional as well as adequate?

The first question is the hardest, and has to be asked often and personally. For me it is much easier when the subject is ‘religious’, but what about the historical novel, or poetry which is not overtly Christian? Are the demands on my time and energy justified?

The second question needs some thought. Have I prayed sufficiently to feel that my simple thoughts could be of help to someone, and are not just another ‘opinion’? Is my writing accessible to the contemporary world and not just my own particular social circle?

The third question is easiest for me, because it is more obvious and can be worked on. As a member of the Fellowship of Christian Writers, I have seen many unintelligible manuscripts sent in by Christians who feel they have something important to say for God. Their sincerity is not in question, but until they take the trouble to learn at least the basics and presentation of writing, it is doubtful whether their thoughts will get beyond the editor’s desk. 

Christian Writing Groups

I am part of this group where people can share their writing, perhaps for the first time, sometimes with quite personal content. So it’s important that the material stays within the group. Unless someone gives overt permission to share their work, it should stay within our circle. We don’t talk about what other people are writing to anyone outside the group; privacy must be respected, if we are to develop trust in each other.

It’s also important to remember that, coming from a wide variety of Christian backgrounds and traditions, we won’t always agree with each other’s content. A writing group like ours is not intended for debate, or to try and persuade others in the group to change their opinions. It’s to help each other become better writers, and to encourage each other to keep writing. So we make sure that we do not criticise or attack each other’s beliefs, or those of any other part of the Christian family. 

Each group will, of course, develop its own guidelines and principles, but mutual trust and respect are (in my opinion) always essential. For groups with experienced, published writers, strong critique may be acceptable. But for those who are new to writing, or who only write occasionally, criticism may deter them from future writing. We find that it’s fine to query specific words or phrases, where relevant, or to give grammar and punctuation corrections for those who would like that kind of critique. We might suggest alternative styles someone might follow (a short story, perhaps, rather than a poem) or possible outlets for publication, if appropriate. We try to save any tangential discussion of the content for a refreshment break. 

Avoiding Agendas 

As followers of Christ, our primary calling is to love God and to love other people. Jesus also told us to be salt and light. Salt gives taste to bland food, and enhances flavours. But it has to be applied carefully, or it is in danger of becoming overwhelming, unpleasant, and possibly dangerous to our health. Light enables us to see, shows us the world, and helps us find what would otherwise be hidden. However, too much light can damage our eyes, or even our skin. 

Our calling as writers is to communicate in the written word. We must choose each word carefully if we want to be taken seriously. In a conversation, the other person can ask questions, argue, or demand clarification of points. Sometimes we can agree to disagree, and move on. But when someone reads an article or book, in print or online, the author has no chance to explain further what they meant. If the readers find the tone abrupt, boring or pushy, they will put the book down and choose another, or click to a different website. 

As writers we can communicate the love of God. Whether writing fiction or nonfiction, poetry or prose, we can introduce themes that are important to us, in ways that are subtle. We can use anecdotes or stories as metaphors. We can explain our personal viewpoints, briefly, if relevant to the context. But we must avoid turning every piece of writing into an attempt to convince others to agree with our beliefs. Our readers might question their assumptions, or ponder new ideas, but only if they are offered courteously.

As Madeleine L’Engle said [2], 

We do not draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it,

________________

[1] https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/reading-fiction-empathy-better-person/
[2] https://www.azquotes.com/author/8364-Madeleine_L_Engle

Priorities

I'm not sure who first coined the phrase, 'The Tyranny of the Urgent'.

Nor who first drew the distinction between the 'important' and the 'urgent'.

Nor do I even recall when I first had an 'aha!' moment as I understood, in my soul, the difference. Living in the twenty-first century, it seems that we are surrounded constantly by the 'urgent'. Emails, text messages, Facebook status updates, online forums, blogs to follow. The faster one comments or replies, the quicker another incoming message appears. I've mostly resisted Twitter, and hope to continue to do so, since it seems that one could spend one's entire life 'tweeting' (or reading other people's tweets).

When one has children at home, there are plenty of urgent demands, most of which are also fairly important. A baby needs feeding, or changing, and the best thing for all concerned is to meet the baby's demands at once. Gone, thankfully, are the days when mothers were advised to feed only on schedule, and leave the baby screaming if he was hungry at any other time.

There are urgent needs for older children, too. What parent hasn't dropped everything on hearing a piercing yell? Or to race to the bathroom, when their toddler announces, 'I need to pee'? As our children mature, we still structure our time around them and their activities; if combined with work outside the home, lives become even busier. We schedule meetings at school, or church; business dinners; and the endless rounds of shopping, cooking, cleaning up and laundry.

Some new parents remember to schedule a few evenings to relax with friends, or even the occasional 'date-night' with a babysitter left in charge. But as the 'urgent' seeps into every moment of the day, it's all too easy, when finding a spare half-hour, to collapse in front of the television, or scroll through social media. Or perhaps a mindless computer game. Anything to distract our minds from the busy-ness of the day, and the further demands that will no doubt take up our full attention again soon. Clichés abound: the rat-race, the treadmill, the daily grind.

Is this how life should be? Is this 'life in all its fulness' that Jesus promised those who love him?

it doesn't seem that way to me. I'm fortunate - or very blessed, depending on your viewpoint - in that I was able to give up work when our first son was born. When we moved abroad, twenty-five years ago, I started home educating our sons. Perhaps for the first time as a family we had time to pause, to think about the reasons for education, to establish some priorities. We read books together, sometimes for hours. We played family board games. Certainly there were days when we all got caught up in our computers, or 'urgent' tasks, and the boys were often busy with a wide range of activities. But we talked, and we walked, and we pondered, and generally slowed down.

My personal tendency is towards inertia anyway, rather than activity. So I loved this new, more relaxed lifestyle. As the boys grew older, and more responsible for their own activities, I needed to do less and less for them. Cooking and laundry continued of course, but with the help of my many electrical kitchen 'servants', they weren't too onerous, other than in the height of summer when the heat and humidity made anything difficult. 

And yet, how easy it was to get caught up in the online world - to check email every five minutes, to amass Facebook friends, and follow their links, and comment on their updates. To take part in online forums and discussions, answering questions - with the motivation of helping others - and to read endless blogs. There is so much at our fingertips, so much we can read, or learn, without ever leaving the comfort of our computer chairs. The urgent still pounds at our minds, and we don't even realise it.

What is the alternative? Whether working to earn money, or in a supported ministry, or raising a family, or even retired... is it possible to push aside most of the urgent demands and focus on what is important? How do we even discover what IS important? How can we prioritise our days? And if we do - if we start with the important, and then flesh out our lives with the urgent, how do we avoid burnout?

Jesus told us, nearly 2000 years ago, that we should love God, and love other people. We've heard this so often that it doesn't seem particularly radical any more. The first century people - mostly Jews - who heard this, were used to having to follow hundreds of regulations in the hope of meeting God's approval. Laws about hygiene, about eating, about what they could do on the Sabbath... some from Scripture, some rules established by their leaders. Jesus said that love was more important than any of them.

As Christians we don't worry about whether switching on a light is 'work' or not. We don't spend our days having to refer to hundreds or minor rules, in case we offend God. Instead, we get caught up in hundreds of distractions that don't, in themselves, lead us away from God, but which frequently make us forget about God altogether.

Love God. That's what matters. Do what we know God wants us to do, avoid what we know God does not want us to do. Tell God when we mess up, ask for forgiveness, make reparation if necessary, and move on. Listen for the voice of God, and follow our inner promptings. Take time during the day to pause, and reflect, and know that we are loved. Easier said than done, of course. 

And love other people. Our 'neighbours' as the older translations of the Bible put it. Our fellow human beings. Relationships should always be our priority. Not schedules, or organisations, or rules and regulations, but people.

For those who are married, the first priority (after God) must be their spouse. Children or work commitments may give more urgent demands, but it's vital to spend time with the person we promised to love for the rest of our lives. Having to schedule a 'date-night' just to hang out and talk is a little sad - we should be communicating and hanging out together regularly, at home. But if the 'urgent' demands of other people in the home make that difficult, then it's probably a good idea. God gave us our husbands or wives as companions, lovers, friends. There is no more important human relationship.

Children - if we have them - are next. We bring them into the world, and must guide them, encourage them, hug them, spend time with them, and - eventually - let them go.

Parents, friends (on or offline), next-door neighbours, colleagues, needy acquaintances, people on the supermarket checkouts, beggars in the street... all these are people whom we are also supposed to love. And since we don't have the time or emotional energy to deal with all of them every day, then we must listen to God, trusting each day - each moment - that we will know where we are to be, whom we should relate to, what we should do.

I wrote the bulk of this post twelve years ago, and couldn't find a way of concluding. I've updated a little, to take account of the passing of the years. But I don't know that I've got any better at working out what's important. There are fewer 'urgent' demands on my time, but more ways to get distracted.  

I read recently a helpful distinction between what's primarily important in general terms (love God, love other people), what principles we should always follow (truthfulness, generosity, kindness and so on), and what specific things each individual should be doing, day by day - and it's the last one that will vary from person to person. But it's also the hardest thing (in my view) to determine .

When I turned 50 I quipped that I still didn't know what I wanted to be when I grew up.  More than a decade later, that's still the case. 

Rules, Regulations, Laws and Principles

Chatting with a friend, nearly a decade ago, the topic of rules came up. She said that the one thing that made her uncomfortable with the Harry Potter books was the way that the 'good' guys seem to break rules regularly, and never suffer any kind of consequences. My comment was that this is pretty common in the British 'school story' genre in general. There's an understood difference between rules (which are fine to break, at times, so long as one is prepared for possible retribution) and general principles of loyalty and sportsmanship, which should always be adhere to.

I put this down, at first, to growing up in British culture where we see almost everything in shades of grey rather than strict black vs white or right vs wrong. In many cases, the ends justify the means, in my view. So if Harry and his friends sneak out at night under the cloak of invisibility, knowingly breaking school rules, it's fine from a moral standpoint, because they are doing it for a higher purpose: seeing a lonely friend, or rescuing a condemned animal, or finding something out that will save many lives.

I then started pondering on the differences between rules and laws. Googling the two suggests that the difference is essentially in the consequence of breaking them: lawbreakers may end up in jail, or with hefty fines. Rule-breaking is less of a problem. Other definitions are perhaps more helpful: a law is something passed by the government of a country for the protection of the people. Rules are for specific situations, more arbitrary and may much more easily be changed.

We don't always distinguish them so clearly; we talk about 'rules of the road', for instance, when we're referring to laws governing the behaviour of drivers. And yet there's a sense in which they are arbitrary. It's a convention to drive on the left (or right) of the road, to stick to specific speeds in different situations, to overtake on one side rather than the other. 

These rules are drawn up for the safety of the drivers, but on occasion it might be safer to drive over the speed limit (if a dangerously fast driver is too close on a motorway and there's no way to move), or to drive on the wrong side (if an out-of-control driver is weaving around the street where you should be, and nobody else is coming). The principles of safety and avoiding accidents are more important - at that moment - than the official rules.

And that's a third abstract term, one I referred to in the first paragraph: principles. In most cases there are no laws or rules saying that people should be kind, or loyal, or generous. We could call these things morals or ethics. They may come from Christian or other religious beliefs, or from general humanitarianism. I believe they are part of the 'law' which the apostle Paul spoke of as written on everybody's hearts (Romans 2:13-15).

I take as a starting point that there are broad 'good' principles which we are all aware of intuitively from an early age. Parents are expected to be loving, to provide for their offspring's needs, to comfort them when they are hurt. A toddler knows when something is 'unfair', or when another child is 'mean' (even if he, in his turn, is equally unfair and mean; toddlers are, after all, naturally self-centred). Jesus summed up the Jewish law in two overriding principles: love God, and love other people. 

I have written at length about how so many Christians seem to ignore these commands. I wonder if this may be due to the confusion between principles, laws and rules. Love is an overriding principle. Loving God, doing good and keeping healthy are the main reason for most of the original laws and commandments in the Hebrew Bible.

But not everybody likes following general principles. There are those who want to know exactly how far they can go before they are veering away from it. What does it mean to keep the Sabbath holy, or not to bear false witness? Thousands of tiny rules and regulations were drawn up by priests, in Old Testament times, to ensure that the Sabbath was kept holy and free of work. Jesus blew that apart: the Sabbath was supposed to be a day of rest, to remember God; not one of worrying about whether or not it was 'work' to pick a grain of corn, or heal a man's hand.

When we have small children, we have to make specific rules to keep them safe. A two-year-old might be told he must NEVER go into the street without holding an adult's hand. Do we really mean 'never'? Of course not. By the time he's five or six, he will have learned to be more careful. Perhaps, on quiet minor streets, he is permitted to cross by himself. By nine or ten, depending on his awareness, he may be free of street-crossing rules. They are there to serve a purpose, to protect the child; they may be queried at any time, and may be discussed or changed as the child matures. Rules are not absolutes, nor are they guarantees of safety.

Back to the fictional Hogwarts school situation: in any institution there must be general principles of care for others. So it makes sense to have rules about not running in busy corridors, for instance, or curfews at boarding schools, to ensure all students are safely indoors at night. In order that all students are able to study and learn as they wish, it makes sense for teachers to expect quiet conditions with students sitting in their places during lessons. Some schools allow more discussion than others; a few have the freedom to attend or not attend classes.

However, these are all rules - guidelines for behaviour, to enable everyone to learn. They are not laws; nor are they principles. The main principle at stake here is one of respect for everyone else. There are greater principles too; if somebody collapses suddenly, or has a fit, it would be entirely appropriate for a student to run as fast as possible through the corridors to fetch help, or to call out to get the teacher's attention.

Rules are not 'made to be broken', as the old saying has it; but they are subject to higher principles and guidelines. A child raised in a loving, respectful and open home will know when to query rules and when it's appropriate to put them aside. They should also start to assimilate the guiding principles of morality: it's not just against the rules to take things from Mum's purse or Dad's wallet, it's morally wrong to steal in general. 

There's a law against stealing, in almost every country, with legal consequences for those who are caught contravening the law (in some cases quite harsh). The law forbidding stealing is an example of the principles of ownership - of being entitled to one's property. However, that should balance the principle of generosity - that those who have a lot should find ways of sharing or benefiting those who have nothing. If the principle of love for other people was fully understood and observed, we wouldn't need laws (although rules, in some circumstances, would still be needed). 

On Flexitarianism

I like to think of myself as an ethical person. I don’t want people or animals to be abused, and if I saw it happening I hope I would do something to stop it. However we live in a corrupt world, where abuse happens all the time, in multiple ways. I don’t condone it, but when I try to work out what I can do - or not do - about it, it becomes overwhelming.

There are child slaves picking coffee and cocoa beans under terrible conditions in some African and South American countries. There are adult slaves making clothes under even worse conditions in Asian countries. There are animals treated appallingly to provide meat and dairy products all around the world. And that’s without even starting on the way rainforests are being torn down, and the earth’s resources used up, having a long-term negative effect not just on humans but on the indigenous animals and birds.

Some people choose to live off the grid entirely, to grow their own produce, weave their own cloth, make their own clothes. While some develop their own rigid systems that can lead to different kinds of abuse, I have an overriding admiration for those who can follow a simple lifestyle, knowing that they’re not causing added pain to anyone outside their community. But we’re not all called to that kind of living.

So, as an ordinary 21st century woman, I admit that I like using kitchen appliances and technology. I stop sometimes and wonder: were they made by slaves in China?

I don’t know.

I’m not proud of that fact, but most modern equipment is made of so many components that it’s impossible to guarantee ethical sourcing.

What of clothes? I tend to buy from inexpensive and second-hand sources. I don’t have any interest in designer labels or spending large amounts on clothing. Pre-owned clothes are good from the renewable resource point of view, but were they originally made by slaves?

I don’t know.

I stopped shopping at one discount store in the UK when it was publicised widely that its suppliers included slaves. But is there any guarantee that other shops are any better? If high prices are charged, does that mean that the people at the far end of the chain were paid a good wage? Or does it simply mean that the suppliers and shop owners are raking in bigger profits?

I don’t know.

Then there’s the controversial topic of food. I have avoided, for some years, buying products from one particular company whom we are aware have some dubious ethical practices. But are others any better, or are they simply more able to hide their dubious practices?

I don’t know.

A few years ago we made the effort to buy only Fair Trade coffee and chocolate. We expanded that to include items stamped with the sustainable agriculture or ‘green’ logos. Companies that work with the environment are generally working towards fairer trading and wages, even if they have not yet achieved the necessary standard for the Fair Trade stamp. But living in Cyprus, it’s not always possible to find items that we know to be fairly traded.

Where possible we buy locally produced fruit and vegetables. That’s partly for selfish reasons, as they tend to taste better. It’s also partly to reduce our carbon footprint at least slightly. Besides, supporting the local economy seems like a good thing to do on the whole…

… Yet all that is just a tiny drop in the ocean of doing our bit to reduce the abuse of other humans.

When we try also to avoid animals abuse, further problems arise. We have many friends who are vegetarians (including some family members) and a few who are vegan. Some follow these diets for health reasons, some due to personal preference, some for the sake of economy or the environment. And then there are those who are vegan or vegetarian for ethical reasons. Some of them are very vocal on social networks. Are animals subjected to horrific treatment and pain for the sake of meat-eating humans? Undoubtedly they are, in much of the world. Pigs are considered as intelligent as dogs, yet most of us in the West would not consider torturing dogs or eating dog meat. Cows are gentle, caring animals, suffering abuse not just for the sake of meat but for the vast dairy industry: forced into repeated pregnancies, having their calves taken away from them at a young age so that they can be milked by machines, to provide daily pintas.

Until perhaps ten or fifteen years ago, I hadn’t thought much about this. I always knew that I would not be able to kill an animal myself. If I lived alone, my preference would be vegetarianism, but in part that’s because I’m not a great fan of meat anyway. But I had seen farm animals grazing on British hillsides, and thought idly that they wouldn’t be alive at all if it weren’t for farmers breeding them for the sake of meat. I had assumed that the slaughtering process was, if regrettable, at least humane.

I’m part of a family who, on the whole, eat and serve quite a bit of meat. Some of them become depressed if they don’t eat meat at least two or three times per week. While some people thrive as vegetarians or vegans, others seem to need to eat meat of some kind. If I have to prepare meat dishes for family members, it’s extra effort to make vegetarian ones too. I’ll do it for friends or family; it feels a bit selfish to do it just for myself. So over the years I’ve learned to compromise.

So I cook fish or poultry three or four times each week. If I make something with beef mince, such as chili con carne, or enchiladas, I make myself something similar based on beans or lentils rather than meat. We’re dairy-free because my husband finds that cow products make his ears block up, but we eat free-range eggs. I don’t cook steaks or chops or use any lamb or pork (except for occasional sausages for visitors) but when visitors treat us to a meal out, my husband will eat meat while I choose a vegetarian option.

My other inclination is towards natural products - cooking with ingredients rather than buying anything processed. I grew up in a household where almost everything was cooked from scratch, and home-cooked food tastes so much better than most ready-made versions. When I had small children at home I sometimes bought pre-made products, to save time. But over the years I’ve moved increasingly towards cooking everything from ingredients. This is partly as I’ve learned more about doing so, and partly as processed foods seem to attract more and more potentially toxic additives. I suffer migraines if I eat anything containing MSG or its derivatives, soya products, nitrites, sulphites, aspartame or - alas! - Marmite. That’s a very good, if self-centred reason to buy and use only pure products with minimal processing.

Still, I keep ready-made sheets of puff pastry in the freezer for the occasions when I need it. I buy ready-made tortillas and pittas, although I could make them myself, because they’re so much more convenient. And - so far, at any rate - I buy ready-made mayonnaise, as the home-made version is quite complex to produce.

I learned a few years ago that what I consider regular cooking with ingredients is known as ‘clean eating’, and is a trend in its own right rather than most people’s default. But I didn’t have a label for my style of mostly vegetarian with some animal products now and again. Then I learned that this, too, has a name: flexitarianism. The idea is a mostly plant-based diet, with flesh foods a few times a week. When people write books and websites giving ‘flexitarian diets’ they’re not much different from the so-called ‘Mediterranean’ diet, which has been touted as the ideal for good health for many years.

I find it a tad ironic that so many people want regimes and lists for the ‘flexitarian diet’. Yet the same itself implies flexibility. Questions flood forums and other sites: Isn’t it just vegetarianism with cheating? What is ‘allowed’ on a flexitarian diet? Can we eat meat if someone else cooks it for us? How many times a day can we eat eggs…?

It doesn’t work that way. My eating preferences fit into flexitarianism nicely, and my meat-loving husband is fine with it too. If we’re staying with relatives who cook roast beef on Sunday, I’ll eat a little, and pile my plate with vegetables. It’s not like militant veganism; I’m not trying to convert anybody else to my style of eating. I do think it has health benefits. I also think that the dairy-industry is cruel nowadays, but I was aware of that before we stopped using cow’s milk products. I still eat ordinary cheese when offered it in other people’s houses. Does this make me a hypocrite? Perhaps.

I didn’t think much more about my style, having found a name for it. Then a week or so back a worrying report was published, from top scientists, on the topic of global warming. Whether or not this phenomenon is connected to a natural cycle, as some claim, there seems little doubt that global temperatures are increasing at an all-too-rapid rate. Moreover, this could be reduced if sufficient people and organisations take action. Many strategies are proposed, including widespread use of sustainable energy and reduction in fuel usage.

But the most important recommended change, a little to my surprise, is in the way we eat. Avoiding meat and dairy products, according to the report, is the single biggest way to avoid a negative impact on the earth. According to this analysis, meat and dairy provide only 18% of people’s calories globally, and 37% of their protein. But livestock uses 83% of farmland around the world, and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The leader of the research, a scientist at Oxford University, stated that, ‘A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth.’ He began the research in the hope of finding the most sustainable sources of animal products. As a result of his research, he has stopped consuming animal products altogether. Other scientists around the world agree with his conclusions, but realise that veganism would be too big a step for the majority of people. Vegetarianism which includes milk products would not help.

So many scientists are recommending a gradual decrease of animal products in our diets, while - as doctors and other health experts have been saying for a long time - we should all increase our consumption of plant-based foods. The word ‘flexitarianism’ is in the news, and people who like to follow the latest trends are asking what exactly it entails.

For once in my life, I am doing something that’s not only scientifically recommended and at least somewhat ethical, it's actually fashionable.