Category: Current Affairs

Election campaigns often bring out the worst in political leaders. The alarming decline in civil respect, and the scorn for accuracy let alone honesty of words is one of the more socially damaging developments in recent electioneering. Disrespect and witting or unwitting deceit are corrosive of trust, and act as solvents which compromise and weaken the most important things that a society has in common. The results of this are not long in appearing; intolerance of views that differ, refusal to listen to other views, unwillingness to consider evidence inconvenient to the promulgated ideology, a lowering of the bars of credibility and credulity as claims and disclaimers become more strident, exaggerated, overstated and untruthful. And all of this in a culture now soaked in information, misinformation and pervasive exchanges on social media, as truths and counter truths, lies and counter lies, ping back in forth on millions of devices.

The example that prompts this post was the recent claim made by the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary, that Jeremy Corbyn would be "reluctant to use nuclear weapons". The Prime Minister's own position is emphatically stated, that she would use nuclear weapons, even on a first strike basis "without hesitation". Now it is well known that Corbyn's opposition to nuclear weapons is a major fault line between him and the Conservatives, and indeed that his position is not one fully shared within the Labour Party. But that is not my concern with the choice of words. It was the word "reluctant", that made me stop, and consider, and then hear what had actually been said.

In the bid to appear strong, resolute, and to be trusted with the security of the nation, her opponent was portrayed as weak, vacillating and not to be trusted, as he would be "reluctant" to order a nuclear strike. She would not hesitate, he would be reluctant. She "would not hesitate." Really? Is that even conceivable in the leader of a democratic and sovereign state, and a human being, standing on the last millimetre of the very edge of a catastrophe of global proportions which she will initiate? Is she claiming that degree of certainty, moral authority and decisive strategic will? This is not even to question the validity of a view that legitimates the use of an ultimate weapon which could have irrevocable consequences for millions of human beings, if not the future of humanity itself. It is to call in question the self-awareness, political wisdom and moral competence of the person who holds that power.

He would be "reluctant", which is not the same as a refusal, but does seem to suggest that awareness of the consequences of the decision made are of such magnitude that they give pause for thought, deep thought. Now such hesitation and reluctance could indeed be fatal if deterrence fails and a first strike is launched against our country. Much of the thinking has to be done beforehand, though in the end the reality of making such a decision will be different from any mental and emotional rehearsals.

And that is my difficulty with the two phrases – would not hesitate versus would be reluctant. How can any person, faced with an exchange of overwhelming military force with unknown figures of human casualties and massive perhaps permanent damage to the earth's biosphere, say what they will do, how they will think, what considerations at present unforeseen will have to be taken into account? The rhetoric of the dispatch box in Parliament, and the bravado and big talk of the hustings (or in the Prime Minister's case) the orchestrated news conference filled with supporters), is, literally light years removed from an operations room and the requirement to say yes or no in response to looming catastrophe on an unprecedented scale. This is not Hollywood. This is real. And it is the mark of the true leader that they demonstrate the moral seriousness and political humility of the one entrusted with a nation's safety and our global future. Boasting of strength is a fundamental weakness that in this case, lacks the requisite moral awareness to look into the abyss, and be reluctant to the very last, to push us all over that edge.

This is not an argument against the retention of a nuclear capability and deterrent. That is another issue I think. I am offering a critique of the dangerous rhetoric that ridicules proper moral caution. I am urging a proper acknowledgement of consequences, and a recognition of the human costs on an unprecedented scale of nuclear conflict. I am saying no to the practice of ridiculing such moral considerations and rubbishing valid differences of ethical principle. And I am also asking the question whether strong leadership which does not hesitate to unleash destruction, is to be preferred to a leadership that recoils from such certainty until the decision has to be made, and only then, with a reluctance weighted with a primal guilt inherent in actions of such finality.

Hate crimes are on the increase since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. This according to several independent monitoring groups, and a swathe of anecdotal and recorded incidents broadcast on social media. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the increased outbreaks of verbal and physical abuse, and public hostility towards immigrants, people of other faiths, and people of colour, is directly related to the use of alarmist images and demeaning slogans during the campaign by certain sections of the Leave campaign. It goes without saying, but it is important to say nevertheless, that such despicable behaviour and hostile treatment of others is absolutely unacceptable to the overhwelming majority of those who voted in the Referendum. Those who voted, whether Remain or Leave, did so for many different reasons, and the underlying motivations are psychologically complex, socially complicated and reflect politically varied responses to the economic, national and cultural realities of our relations with Europe.

Nevertheless. Once the rhetoric of rejection and the objectification of others as a problem has been legitimated in political posturing, it is unsurprising that some of those who hold such views will begin to target minority groups and label them a problem, a threat and an unwelcome presence. That is what has been happening in various cities and towns since last Friday's "vistory" for Leave. As a Christian, who voted Remain, I reflect on a campaign that from both sides has been brutal, ruthless, pervasively dishonest, and  sloganised at the cost of substance and evidence. The lack of evidence based argument, indeed at times the deliberate avoidance of such reflective patience and critique, has meant that in the aftermoath many people still only justify their decision by appeal to those slogans, sound bytes and gut feeling reactions embedded in their personal experience and private worldview.

And as a Christian reflecting on all that I have a number of questions, for myself, for my fellow citizens and especially for those who will exploit the lowering of our standards of discourse and use that as a legitimation of hatred, rejection and discrimination against those "others" who are not "us". And as a Christian one of the most pressing questions will be about how in a society where hate crimes are increasing, the followers of Jesus can be just as vocal, public and visbly performative of acts of love, peace, reconciliation and welcome. Whichever way each Christian has voted, there is a Kingdom obligation to be a people of welcome, love, peace and conciliation.

During the Referendum campaign there were statements made, images used, arguments and slogans thrown around without regard to who they hurt or what toxins they released into an atmosphere volatile with fear, uncertainty and amongst many, a determined closing of the ears to voices different from their own. These spores of toxic rhetoric are now infecting our environment. It is now less safe for immigrant workers, people of colour, and any number of "others", to move freely and live without fear amongst us. That is a disgrace. By which I mean as a Christian, that is such an affront to the God I believe in I will not tolerate it, and I will act in ways opposite to that.

Because some have taken the Leave decision as a mandate to reject, abuse and unfriend (literally as well as on FB), it becomes important that Christians take the Gospel as their mandate and welcome, affirm and befriend those who are now afraid, feeling unwelcome, and uncertain both of their future and of their place amongst us. Gestures of welcome such as shared meals, solidarity and public befriending of those whose path crosses our own, defending those ill-treated and ill-spoken to, prayers explicit and specific for people, their families and their struggles to settle amongst us.

I guess what I am saying is – listen carefully, hear God's call in Christ the Crucified to confront hate crimes with love gifts, hear the divine imperative to retaliate against destructive words and actions with redemptive words and gestures, and obey the Gospel's scandalously subversive policies of doing good to those who hate and overcoming evil with good.    

I am troubled by the decision not to press charges in the MI6 Rendition case. No one is denying that two couples were sent to Libya. The torture allegations have no been disproven. The evidence of communication between British Intelligence and Libya is extant. And there is no suggestion of clean hands or non-involvement. The question is about the nature of the involvement and the capacity of available evidence to stand up in court.

That the United Kingdom through either its Government, its Intelligence Services, or a combination of both, are implicated and found at the scene is morally disgusting. Rendition is a process that bypasses the judicial system and neutralises all claims to human rights. It should never happen from the territory of a country that is a signatory of the UNDHR.

This news comes when it is also confirmed that the Police in Northern Ireland colluded in the murder of six Catholics in a pub in Loughinisland 22 years ago. Once again it is already suggested the time that has elapsed will make it difficult to achieve conviction of those repsonsible. 

In the aftermath of Hillsborough, and the growing unease of what happened with police and miners during the strike confrontations, there is an accelerating devaluation of the integrity and trustworthiness of policing and security institutions in our country. Right at the top, whether MI6, The Met, or wider police authorities, there is a recurring theme of failed public responsibility, and hard to achieve public accountability. More and more cases of corruption, cover-up, career protection, collusion with criminality, culpable inaction ranging from incompetence to deliberate delay to sabotage evidence, – such revelations undermine the trust and reliability essential to good policing, public confidence in the judiciary, and the place of the United Kingdom on the global ethics scale of international justice.

The public good can never be served by its own core values subverted for the purposes of, well, serving the public good. At that stage the word good is itself misleading – serving the public interest? – serving the public by deceiving? Or as was said in the recent Line of Duty drama series. " I want justice and I'm prepared to commit injustice to have it." That way lies the erosion of all that makes a society healthy, robust in the face of evil, hate and violence, and actually worth preserving in the first place. That I pay taxes to a Government, whose politicians and intelligence services reek of plane fuel from rendition trips, is something that fills me with, I use both words advisedly, righteous indignation.   

“A test of a people is how it behaves toward the old. It is easy to love children. Even tyrants and dictators make a point of being fond of children. But the affection and care for the old, the incurable, the helpless are the true gold mines of a culture.”

A J Heschel wrote this 50 years ago, and he is more right now than he was even then. Why? Because today there are new and unprecedented challenges to living on into older age, and they contribute towards the reduced value of human being in market terms, and especially as each human being grows older.

Consider:

the digital age and multiplying forms of social communication which leave many behind in the technology is the way to go stakes

the global recession and the remorseless demands of the manufactured idol called Austerity

market criteria in social care and the barcoding of every act of community service paid for by tax payers

the fixation of Government on the bottom line without addressing the humanely critical questions of how that bottom line is reached

globalisation and the emerence of mega-structures of business, economics and finance, which means decisions made thousands of miles away by unaccountable corporations have immediate local impact on the wellbeing and welfare of people helpless to influence those decisions

cultural, ethnic and religious pluralism coinciding with a time of unprecedented polarisation in precisely these contested but rich areas of human experience.

It is a hard world in which to be old.

Affection and care for the old is a principle that Heschel derived not from a mere humanism, but from a humanism rooted in Torah, and in the deep quarries of prophetic visions of social justice, and concepts like mercy, righteousness and law as a constraint rather than an excuse for exercise of power over the vulnerable. As a Christian I identify with such theologically fuelled ethics.

As an example of much of the above, let me describe a recent scenario. I am currently minister of a church in a trown where the local authority is in the middle of a consultation with residents in sheltered accommodation. Care homes in this Local Authority have until now had a full time warden, a laundry and a social room or residents' lounge. The necessity, cost-effectiveness and long term viability of each of these services is being questioned by the Council as provider. And as happens with most consultations, there is a widespread perception that this is a soft approach to what will become hard realities.

The residents' lounge is a place where residents sit and meet and share experience, where friendships are fostered, relationships negotiated and developed, where social entertainment and conversation are encouraged. At a time when loneliness and isolation are described as epidemic amongst the older population, the removal of this facility would lack moral imagination, and instead would demonstrate the kind of social selfishness that lurks beneath the euphemism 'hard choices', and "essential cuts." 

The presence of a Warden ensures that concerns and worries about health or being able to cope, issues about mobility, safety and maintenance, are borne by someone who understands, knows the people involved and has the network to ensure what is needed is available. As for the laundry, none of the residents have washing machines as they were told on entry that a laundry was provided; so in the event of laundires being closed, what are residents to do but buy and have installed a washing machine?

When decisions like these are taken, it is unhelpful and unfair to assume local politicians are heartless, thoughtless, or haven't agonised over the cost and consequence of such changes. It's clear with this Local Council that there is deep discomfort that such cuts, changes, adjustments, are even mooted for discussion, and may be thought necessary – but cuts will still happen, if not here elsewhere. Unless of course there is such pressure as forces a change of direction.

But if not here, where else are savings to be made? And therein lies one of the key social issues of our times. What is not up for discussion, it seems, is the need for savings to existing budgets. Why? Because there are limited funds available from Local and Central Government sources. Can these resources be strengthened by increases in revenue? Yes, by raising Council Tax, but that would itself be an unpopular decision, and one that the Scottish Central Government will not make because it is a major plank in their appeal to the electorate – and an election is scheduled in 6 months time.

But I as a member of that electorate would gladly pay more in Council Tax to enable the continuance of our care for our older people. A laundry, a lounge, and a Warden are not luxury options, but represent socially responsible and responsive care. Somewhere in all of this, Christian communities will have to think through what it means for a wealthy country (and we are one of the wealthiest in the world) to save money by making life harder for older people. 

And yes the same case needs to be made for those who are poor, homeless, socially vulnerable, and in need of social support. But Heschel's words are piercingly precise in their diagnosis of a society's illness by looking at how we treat our elderly people. We need to pay attention to his description of where the true gold mines of a culture are to be found – in respectful care for our older people.  Those gold mines are not to be found in budget cuts to essential services to people on whose life and work our society has been built.

Following the tragic murder of a schoolboy in Cults Academy, I am leading prayers of Intercession in Crown Terrace Baptist Church today. This the prayer I have prepared:

Eternal God, the One we have come to know as Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, the one in whom are hidden all the secrets of wisdom, knowledge and power.

Every day, every term, every year, our schools are communities of learning, places of growth and human development, where friendships and experiences shape and change young lives.

We thank you for all the investment of time, energy, skill and money that goes into our schools, to make them places where knowledge and learning open up new windows, new roads, new opportunities for our children and young people.

We thank you too for the dedication and sheer hard work of teaching staff and pupils alike, year in and year out. That work makes our schools places of excitement and possibility, where knowledge and learning open up new windows, point to new roads, invite and empower towards new opportunities.

God of wisdom it is because we value our schools as dynamos of energy in our communities that we care so much for them, and for those who work and learn and teach there.

And so we come this morning our hearts made heavy with sadness, loss and confusion, because in one of our schools this week, that vision was shattered by unexpected tragedy.  

We pray your mercy and grace for the pupils and staff of Cults Academy, And for the wider community of Cults, and of this city.

We hold before you, in sorrow and shared bewilderment the parents, grand-parents, friends and wider family of Bailey Gwynne. We pray that in the empty ache of loss beyond any words they can say, they may know themselves supported and helped by the love of others. God may your mercy filter through those countless acts of kindness, flickers of light when everything else seems dark.

We pray for the parents of both boys, who in different ways look to a future helpless now to change circumstances none would ever have imagined. Be with them in whatever they feel at this moment.

Lord give wisdom and compassion to those who bring counsel and help; we thank you for the leadership of Anna Muirhead the Head teacher, and staff of Cults academy;  grant continuing strength and wisdom to them and to the liaison police, counsellors, social workers and parents.

Lord by your Spirit of love and healing and consolation, enable all those young people to support each other, and to find in all this bewildering mess of sorrow, hard truths and big realities on which to build their own futures with greater hopefulness and care for the world around them.

Creator God, whose will is life and whose purpose is to redeem and renew, who hears the cry of the heart-broken, and understands the deepest loves and hurts of every parent and child, We place into your hands all affected by this tragedy.

In your mercy hear us; by your grace uphold and give strength; in this, as in every dark valley, walk with those who are afraid, be light in the dark places, in the name of your Son Jesus Christ, whose light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it,  Amen

Sometimes it's the ordinary words that contain the deepest meanings, and the most far reaching possibilities. We live now in the rhetorically overblown world of politics in which spin is now the least of the dangers to truth. For added devalue of truth, evasiveness is now a required skill, mantra chanting of words like deficit and austerity is a new liturgy of the have plenties, moralised  clauses of exclusion such as 'those who do the right thing', and 'hard working families' are given quasi-moral currency, and promises (such as on child tax credits) are printed and published like promissory banknotes only to find that, once in power, the notes are declared by the issuer as past their use by date. These are rough and hard and harsh times for many people, and they need more than politicians who make a virtue out of being rough, hard and harsh in their policies, even if they do sound like sweet reason in their explanations and claim to represent the nation's interests.

So when Jeremy Corbyn creates what sounds like an unlikely oxymoron it's worth paying attention; he might just be saying something we have waited a long time to hear. He promised a "kinder politics". Who would think that after years of austerity, hard nosed ideology, and conflicted interests as lacerating as any class divisions of the past, that a politician would realistically suggest a kinder politics. The word, and concept and experience of kindness has not been evident on the floor of the House of Commons, or in the development and implementation of economic policies, nor in the crucibles of poverty, disadvantage and vulnerability which have been the three preferred easy target areas for the benefit cuts of recent years – and as for benefit sanctions, these only exist in a society which has grown tolerant, even slowly but surely preferring, unkindness to kindness.

Jeremy Corbyn spoke of kinder politics and a more caring society. It is to his credit as a leader of the Labour Party that Corbyn is unabashed to use such words – kinder politics, more caring society, in other words a commitment to the common good. In one of Walter Brueggemann's recent books, Journey to the Common Good,  a chapter is entitled "Continuing Subversion of Alternative Possibility." What Brueggemann is getting at is that there is a place in Christian witness for calling in question the status quo, a spiritual and ethical necessity to contradict the dominant story of the powerful, a call from God indeed, to subvert, undermine, destabilise the alleged certainties of 'that's the way it is' by persistently and patiently pointing to alternative possibilities. That is what Corbyn was doing today – daring to describe kinder politics, a more caring society, commitment to the common good.

Will he succeed? Will the Party follow, especially the powerful and influential voices which are trained to sniff danger, to act in self-preserving ways and to position themselves to advantage? Such is politics. But if Labour is to win back the hearts of the electrorate, at least enough of them to win an election, then the party faithful and its strongest voices will need to embrace risk; and they will need to put constituents and ordinary folk above personal interests, and open their eyes to a larger vision than the mere calculus of what is safest and least likely to upset the political equilibrium of the status quo.

I am heartened that a politician articulates through such a simple term as kindness, a deeply and disturbingly subversive word of notice to the politics of austerity, with the relentless focus on benefits, welfare and health as key savings sources. This is a call to a more humane politics, a more human face of the body politic, and I for one buy into it 100% as a Christian, as a voter, and yes, as a human being who thinks kindness is a political as well as an ethical value. .  

Step inside the library building at Aberdeen University, look up, and this is what you see. Shadow  and light, curve and line, an ascending spiral towards the light of the sky beyond the glass roof. As a concept for human longing to know, as an invitation which draws the heart into the intellectual aspirations of those who have come to learn, as a celebration of dedicated space which begins by creating an excess of space; as concept an invitation and a celebration it is also an affirmation of the serious joys of education, learning, and knowing. More than that it is a geometric framework which seems to me to be both playful and purposeful, forcing us to examine our perspectives whether we stand on ground floor looking up, or on floor seven looking down and seeing both the structure and the harmony of this temple of the mind, where curiosity, ideas, thought, passion and study are part of the liturgy of learning.

It's been a lesson in not taking such things for granted, these past couple of weeks when the library has been closed due to a serious power failure. This building which is a winner of global awards for its green credentials, using and recycling heat and energy in ways that are a tribute to precisely the imaginative and innovative minds the building is built to encourage, form and grow. But it's back in ciruclation again. A University without a library is like a restaurant without a larder, a bank without currency, a hospital without a pharmacy. Mind you the catalogue and IT still works well enough to send out reminders of overdue books – even if the building is closed!

All of this is a way of saying soe thing I've long believed, and often said or written. Libraries are an essential and crucial part of our social fabric. Libraries are places where we learn to be critical of the status quo, radical in the way we see and judge the world in which we live. Critical thinking reveres questions, ethical reflection is respect for moral distinction and judgement, innovative ideas take us beyond where we are to new places round the corners of learning, imaginative and specualtive experiment tests the validity and viability of our ideas – and that is all made possible by a library.

So in these days of political certainties about what we should and shouldn't spend money on, and what is value for money or a waste of money, the library also comes into the budget decisions of those who govern, locally, institutionally, nationally. The cutbacks on the humanities in our Universities, the reduction of library facilities and funding in major institutions and local authorities, and even the closure of local libraries in small commnities, are decisions made on the grounds of money. But the actual cost in social capital and human development appears nowhere on the balance sheet, until years down the line we are faced with a population less literate, less persuaded of the importance of learning, less generous in ensuring such provisions are made for those who otherwise have no access to the gifts that make possible self-education and growth in human and humane learning.

I want to push this idea as far as it will shove! The creation of a migrant crisis through the rhetoric of fear, threat, self interest and hatred of the other, is in the precise use of the term, ignorant. Politicians should know better – which is itself an interesting assumption. It suggests that better knowledge would create a better climate of discourse, a different ethical environment in which to consider the rights and wrongs of our national attitudes, actions and policies. I wonder how many of the decision makers in Parliament and the inhabitants of its labyrinthine committee and policy corridors are familiar with the history of civilisations, or conversant with the literature of the ages and of our own age, or care about the insights and cultural relevance of anthropology. And I am theerefore let to wonder how many who shape our national responses to refugees work within the tunnel vision perpectives of political party selfishness, misconceived national self interest, fear of the other, and anxious focus on numbers, statistics and budgets. And this instead of considering the obligations and requirements placed on us as a nation, by natural concern for and commitment to humanity. Judging by our Government's reactions and responses to the refugee crisis we are no longer a nation that looks humanely forth on human life. I wonder if that has any connection to the loss of the humanities as an essential and substantial pillar in the education of those who live on these islands?