A long time ago I came across a prayer for Marilyn Monroe, written by Ernesto Cardenal, the Nicaraguan Catholic poet-politician. It is a careful account of what happens to a woman who becomes iconic, and whose value and identity are conferred on her by public attention and media hype. Marilyn Monroe the celebrity was created by a culture hungry for glamour, eager for scandal, and addicted to vicarious experience. Vicarious experience is when we can observe from a safe distance other people living the life we wish we could but never will, or in which their hurt and brokenness becomes a spectacle, a performance which we watch without ever encountering the painful reality.

When I say the prayer for Marilyn Monroe is a "careful account", I mean the account was full of that kind of care that begins with compassion, moves to anger and ends with a prayer for her peace, and for our forgiveness for reducing a human being to the level of our personal entertainment.

I am feeling something similar about the coverage of Jade Goody's illness. I've accompanied enough people through this later stage of a life journey to respect vulnerability, revere human courage, recognise the beauty and poignancy of our very human desire to live the gift of life fully. To do this in the public eye, with privacy auctioned to Digital TV and tabloid papers, and for the entire process to be orchestrated by a publicist, indicates a culture in which ethical norms and respect for human dignity have encountered their own credit crunch. We have become voyeurs of grief, trying to make death a virtual reality.

The good that is done in publicising the need for vigilance and research funding for this kind of cancer; the earning of enough money to ensure financial security for her children; even the strength Jade herself generates through turning her last weeks into a reality TV performance; each of these can be defended as reasons why Jade is doing this.

And I have no criticism whatsoever for her. My sadness and outrage come from somewhere else. Jade Goody's life story is one in which some of the most serious deficiencies in our social care of children and vulnerable young people are exposed. Since her career was launched through Big Brother she has endured adulation and opprobrium, that see-saw of love and hate the media revels in all the way to the bank, but which is lethally corrosive of a person's identity and self-worth. Our fascination with celebrity culture over mere humanity, our preference for reality TV instead of reality, our capacity through media coverage to make and break our gods (lower case intended), and the huge financial power of fame and infamy as vehicles for public entertainment; these have created a culture in which the celebrity is no longer considered a human person, and the first stone always lies nearby, ready to be thrown. There can be few more damning illustrations of our society's lost values than our endorsing of a process which puts entertainment value on a young woman's dying. I think what I find most distressing in this is the default selfishness of a culture where tears, sympathy and even grief are dissolved into the acid of reality TV and celebrity public self-exposure.

All of this arises out of praying the Lord's Prayer. How? Because that clause about being forgiven as we forgive those who sin against us, raised for me the old question about the sinner and the sinned against. Is Jade Goody sinner or sinned against? In one sense we all are – sinner and sinned against. But in some lives the damage sustained in growing up and trying to make a way in life seems disproportionate. And it can decisively shape who we are.

But this I believe. Whoever Jade Goody really is, God knows. I mean it. God does know. And the love and assurance, the security and the peace, the acceptance and healing of soul that we all long for, Jade included, depend on the truth of that central affirmation of Christian faith, that in Jesus, the friend of sinners, we are shown that God is love – and what kind of love God is. Jade and her children have been christened – I've no idea what all that was about other than this. In God's eyes Jade Goody is not and never has been, the composite cipher of a media circus. She is a daughter, a woman, a mother, a person with a name, and she is known to God. And the God whose love is seen in Jesus will treat her with a compassion and love infinitely more redemptive and non-judgmental than the celebrity culture that thinks it created her. Jesus doesn't throw stones. 

Jade Goody hasn't tried too hard to conform to the expectations of "respectable society" – like other in your face celebrities she's been exploited by her public. In fact she reminds me more of those less reputable women whose names Jesus knew. Those women who found that when it comes to knowing who they are, and being gifted with a deeper sense of their value and loveability, it isn't the media machine, or the all consuming audience that matter. It's the One who knows and speaks their true name, and who knows more deeply than any other, that there are those who love much because they have been forgiven much (the name of the Dali painting above).  

And so I pray. ….."Our Father, ….forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us". Sinner and sinned against – hard to separate, hard to know. God knows though. And that's enough – for Jade and for us, and for Jade as included in us fallible, wounded, wondering and loved sinners that we all are.

Lord have mercy.

                  Christ have mercy.

                                               Lord have mercy

Two nuclear powered submarines, carrying an unknown number of nuclear warheads.

One British, one French, both allies in the NATO nuclear deterrent strategy.

Both equipped with the latest state of the art sonar detecting technology.

Both equipped with the latest state of the art anti-sonar detecting technology.

Both in the same part of the Atlantic ocean, at the same depth, at the same time.

They are travelling in opposite directions towards each other.

The techonology works brilliantly – neither detects the other.

Collision!!!!

Is this funny

           OR

                   Ironic

                              OR

                                       terrifying

                                                         OR WHAT?

If the rule of law and national security are both in the public interest, and they are in conflict, which one do we choose to uphold?

If it is against the law to torture, but that's the only way to extract intelligence about a security threat to our country, which choice should a government make?

If violating the human rights of one person is necessary to preserve the safety of the general public, should we therefore use violence to prevent violence, break the law to keep the peace, dehumanise an individual to protect the humanity of ourselves?

If such an individual is violated and tortured, should the perpetrators be answerable to the courts? And should all evidence be made available to the court, and the person be assured that before the law they have rights that cannot be denied because undue influence is brought to bear on the court, the Government or its intelligence agencies?

I've never been injured in a terrorist bomb. No one in my family has been killed or had their body shattered by bombs or bullets. So I might not be asking these questions if I had to live with consequences that lead to shattered lives. But I can't help feeling that something near fatal to democracy, something corrosive of human rights, something that threatens the everyday safety and security of us all, something that is morallly toxic is abroad, when allegations of torture, and due legal process, can be frustrated by the prior claims of 'intelligence' and 'terrorist threat.'

In the eyes of the Romans, and various other intelligence gathering agencies of religious and political groups, Jesus of Nazareth was a terrorist threat – who was tortured and crucified. I've never yet heard a positive spin on the verse 'It is expedient that one man should die for the people.' But I'm waiting.

See The Guardian Editorial, along with the links in the piece,

Impartiality in news reporting is like objectivity in history. It's an impossible ideal. Even when genuine attempts at impartiality are made, news reporting is at best an attempt at unbiased reporting of facts – but of course the reporter selects what is shown and said, and states as facts what others are likely to dispute. All reporting comes from a perspective, a specific context, and is articulated in words selected by editors and reporters that inevitably present an angle on the story, even tone of voice and facial expression influencing hearer and viewer. And that doesn't even touch on the complexities of fitting such a story as Gaza in the wider narrative of Middle East politics, national and tribal memories, and centuries old enmities.

To claim to maintain impartiality in such compexity either presupposes there is no right or wrong in any news reporting, or if there is, impartiality requires silence on the moral dimensions of a politically driven military conflict, in order to continue with impartial reporting. Which the BBC has done with enormous credit throughout this most recent episode...prefacing each news bulletin with the scrupulously impartial disclaimer that news reporters were prevented by the Israeli military from entering Gaza during the invasion. So impartial reporting was in fact partial – that is incomplete!

If all that sounds confusing I'm not surprised. But there is a moral philosophical  question here that won't go away; it's also a theological ethical and exegetical question:
Moral philosophy: is impartiality so important that it takes precedence over universally recognised human suffering, some of it likely to lead to death? Are there no situations in which other values rank higher in the decision-making process than impartiality? If not, does that mean news reporting is considered free of moral judgement and ethical responsibility?

Theological Ethics: wherever human suffering can be lessened by the actions, even costly actions, of people of goodwill, is there an imperative arising from the value of human life and the evil that is inflicted suffering, that forbids a bystander stance? If a reporter had been travelling with the Good Samaritan, would he or she be exempt from the imperatives of compassion in order not to take sides, or even be perceived as being partial to the victim? I know – the parallel can be pushed too far. But as a follower of Jesus I can't avoid thinking of impartiality as a too expensive luxury in a world of such indicriminate and partial suffering.

Exegesis: Bad enough to stand before the Judge and have to admit, 'When did we see you hungry, imprisoned, naked, and do nothing?' But to say 'Well we did see you hungry, imprisoned, naked – but we didn't broadcast the emergency appeal because we have to preserve our impartiality, and we're not sure the aid could be delivered anyway'.

I do have enormous sympathy for the BBC General Director and the Trustees. They are in a very hard place where the right decision is hard, and costly, to make. But to report with scrupulous care on the suffering of the people of Gaza, accompanied by images of immense suffering and brokenness, and refusing to broadcast an appeal that can bring help, begins to feel like exploitative voyeurism. I don't believe that about the BBC – their reporters are the best in the world. Their honesty and humanity, their skill and professionalism, their ability to report fairly, would not be diminished by broadcasting an appeal whose content they are free to edit and shape around the sensitivites they have to negotiate. But in the end – this is not simply a tactical call to ensure the BBC reputation – it is a moral call that will also affect the BBC reputation.    

I've just watched news pictures of massive explosions in residential Gaza, fired by Israeli aircraft. Then I watched a doctor wipe blood and remove fragments of shrapnel from a child's face. The photos are available on the Internet – I see no acceptable reason to exhibit them here – such anguish. When tears and blood mingle on the wounded face of a child, I find the political rhetoric and the mutual recriminations and vengeance talk of Hamas and Israel evacuated of all moral justification. And I find it the more outrageous that our own Government has so far offered only words, and muted uncommitted words at that.

I don't mean I want to hear words of condemnation directed at either side or both sides. I mean that I want those who represent me to stop the impotent camera viewed hand-wringing, and speak up on behalf of that child. Want? No, I require. I require of those who represent me that instead of hiding behind the undeniable political complexities, ancient enmities, religious and ideological hatreds that make this war an arena of violent despair, I require that my government cease all arms trading with any and all of those engaged in this conflict. The history in recent years of millions of pounds worth of weapons sold to Israel may well mean that some of the ordinance being so graphically demonstrated as if in a sick sales pitch, came from British manufacturers. Hard to do multi-million pound arms deals and still retain any credible moral authority to say in open and unambiguous terms, that the blood and tears of children, in Gaza or Ashkelon, is always intolerable and must not be deemed inevitable let alone acceptable.

In one of the finest older protest hymns in our hymn books, Harry Emerson Fosdick urged, "Save us from weak resignation, to the evils we deplore…Grant us wisdom, grant us courage, for the facing of this hour." Amongst the virtues absent from much political theatre today, is wisdom and courage. Repeated calls for a cease fire on both sides, when dealing with two intransigent combatant peoples, will require more than mere repetition. So far I've searched amongst the various statements and announcements, without much success, for wisdom and /or courage from those whose veto could stop this.

Meantime, I am on the side of that child, and her brothers and sisters on both sides of that obscene Gaza wall, that "dividing wall of hostility." (Ephesians 2.14 and see Colossians 1.20) Two of my favourite texts, not least because they speak of Christ the peace maker, who through the blood of the cross, demolishes dividing walls of hostility. So while my political representatives use words to avoid causing offence, I'm into another kind of speaking – I'm still praying, for that child and her family, and for other families whose homes and lives are being obliterated on both sides of that, I use the word advisedly, that bloody wall. Because I don't believe for one milli-second, that the blood and tears of that child and all those caught up in this cycle of rage and outrage, are meaningless to the Crucified God who makes peace by the blood of His cross.

Save us from weak resignation

to the evils we deplore….

grant us wisdom,

grant us courage

for the living of this hour.

P.S. My friend Jason points to John Pilger's article, The Death Of Gaza. This is journalism with a conscience, words used as articulated anger and moral scorn, and the heartening refusal of some to be silenced in the face of what are by even the most diluted and qualified definitions, and despite all the politico-ethical gymnastics, war crimes. 

The training of child suicide bombers, and the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel's towns and cities, are threats to the security and safety of the State of Israel. Hamas militants know the likely response and persist in endangering the Palestinian population who have nowhere else to go. Whatever the rights and wrongs of a cause, turning children into weapons and provoking massive retaliation against a civilian population effectively captured in a siege, as a political and military tactic, makes no moral sense and does lasting damage to the work of more moderate Palestinian representatives seeking negotiated peace.

The prolonged seige of Gaza, and the bombing of residential areas with battlefield ordinance is Israel's response, predicted by many, and deliberately provoked by Hamas. Given the siege, the  population trapped and concentrated, their are inevitably tragic consequences that seem on any reckoning I can manage, beyond the scale of morally acceptable self-defence.

I struggle with the idea of proportionality, suggesting that as long as violent death visited on the one side was not exceeded by the other, the killing itself was tolerable. But at least the principle of proprotionality is a recognition in international law that retaliatory self-defence should be in proportion to the perceived and actual threat. With the death toll already at 300 and 600 wounded, the statistics are themselves intolerable. Collective punishment and civilian targetting are war crimes – and Hamas and Israel are both guilty. But Israel is infinitely more potently armed, its military capacity ranging all the way upwards to nuclear; and the Gaza civilian population don't even have the option of fleeing as refugees away from a small, heavily populated, hemmed in danger zone.

The cynical
fatalism of Hamas in firing rockets which though lethal have limited
capacity is obviously intended to buy the world's attention at the cost
of Israel's incrementally massive retaliation. It's a despicable
tactic. But at the same time I can't see warplanes firing missiles at
crowded houses in a besieged city, with catastrophic human
consequences, and think it justified self defence.

What on earth can I as a Christian say to a secular Jewish State and a radical Islamic and Palestinian Jihadist movement hell bent on reciprocal violence. The history of hatred between the peoples who contest the biblical lands and cities gives every impression of immutable enmity, intractability born of decades of bad faith, and levels of poison that suggest the causes are now systemic and chronic. In the relations between Israel and Palestine it is so endemic to the religious commitments and political ambitions of both, that the violence and death it visits on both sides are seen as both predictable and normal. And how to break the cycle of hatred; how to discover an antidote to viral vengeance; how to even speak the word trust without triggering toxic cynicism on both sides? I don't know.

So I pray. I pray for peace. I feel a fool, or at least so out of my depth I'm looking for something to buoy me up. Or I'm naive maybe, uninformed probably, and so, caught in the maelstrom of my own emotions, I try to handle my inner outrage. My whole humanity revolts at the language of violent death as the language of the blind and deaf – that is those who are blind to the existence of the other, and deaf to their voice. Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is one of those chilling terms used in nuclear deterrence theory. But even without the nuclear scenario, vengenace for vengeance, death for death, leads inevitably to atrocity for atrocity.

So I pray. And I ask, how in all this do those with power and a trigger finger or push-button detonator, recover, and rediscover a sense of their own humanity. Because until they do peace is impossible.

So I pray. For peace. Praying that those whose aim is the death of the other whom they don't see and won't hear, may be healed of blind hatred and blind deafness – that they may see, and hear, and turn. Blessed are the peacemakers – I so want to make peace happen. Wish I knew how. So I pray.

Christmas carol ban on school choir

A school choir has been banned from singing Christmas carols at a
festive celebration because organisers wanted to "remove any religious
content", it was claimed.

About 60 pupils from Arthur Bugler Junior
School, in Stanford-le-Hope, Essex, had been due to perform at the
Corringham Winter Festival, in Corringham, Essex.

But after the youngsters had finished
rehearsals, organisers told them their role would not "dovetail" with
the event, local Conservative councillor Danny Nicklen said.

…………………………………………………..

Not sure what to make of this. You can Google the details and get every viewpoint from the Sun to the Telegraph, Channel 4 to BBC.

But leaving aside the obvious
observation that Christmas has just a modicum of religious content, and
ignoring the obviously awkward semantic evidence (Christ – mas, for goodness
sake) – what is going on here?

 This isn’t a move to avoid religious discrimination, but a
decision which discriminates against religion. In a pluralist society are all
those who have religious affiliations, who live by religious traditions, or who
wish to celebrate the contribution of religion to our cultural history and
contemporary reality to be denied that opportunity on locally sponsored events?
Is this then, the organisers' way of educating young people into attitudes of
respect for the other, tolerance of the different, acknowledgement of the
richness that comes from cultural diversity?

 As a Baptist my interest here is not so much on behalf of offended
Christianity. My reluctance to laugh at this level of PC stupidity is directly
related to my convictions about religious liberty and tolerance and the defence of
religious freedoms. Quite apart from the nonsense of a celebration at this time
of the year that wishes to exclude religious
content, (winter festivals have long pagan roots and are by definition religious ritual), my resistance is to the underlying
agenda and assumed powers of those who wish to re-invent religious festivals by redefining them to
secular ends, as if local prejudice could be the arbiter of what is culturally, humanly and
socially important.

 Presumably the good Councillors had a problem with the idea
of a “Wonderful Counsellor”; or do organisers have no great solidarity with sentiments such as “peace
on earth and mercy mild”; or couldn't they cope with the imaginative excesses of “light and life to all he brings, risen
with healing in his wings”. But counsel, peace, mercy and healing are important
human aspirations, essential to the health of the world community, and they are not the exclusive spiritual property of any
faith tradition. But when such faith traditions wish to celebrate the great
themes and festivals, I expect those who represent local people to embody those
attitudes of citizenship, mutual respect and indeed tolerance that they wish to
inculcate in others, including and especially our young people.

 Oh – and the time and energy and enjoyment of all those young people's
practising and rehearsing deserved better than this display of pp – political
petulance / politicial philistinism. The pc (politically correct) thing to do would be to affirm, encourage,
understand and reward what is good in a community – including religious celebration. And if there was a breakdown of communication, and the carols didn't 'dovetail' with the winter festival theme, at what stage does the 'theme' become more important than affirming the young people from the community the Festival is supposed to be for?

Blogging over at the Scottish Baptist College today. About paranoia and the Gospel!

A recent report by a leading psychiatrist at King's College, London, describes the 21st Century as "the age of paranoia".

Question. What is the good news of the Gospel for such an age – and how do we live in such a way that our words are made credible by a way of life in which our faith in Jesus makes us demonstrably different?

You might want to go look.