Category: Current Affairs

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem"

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a youth for a youth…."

Muhammad Abu Khdair 16,

Naftali Frankel, 16,

Gilad Shaer 16, 

Eyal Yifrach, 19,

I didn't know the names of these four young people until the last few days.Now I have seen photos of their faces, and of their anguished families, and however distant, they are the faces of my family and children of my Father, they are our young people. What happens in communities who begin to believe that a youth for a youth is a thinkable option, a solution to anything? The murder of these young men diminishes us all as human beings. I feel depleted, bereaved, personally cheated of the blessing of four young people who embody hope for a more human future.

The waste of so much potential and goodness is a blasphemy against the God we confess, whether we are Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Alongside the atheism of such acts is another attitude which requires its own discourse, Ahumanism. I'm not sure the word exists, but I use it to describe attitudes and actions that require a stronger word that inhuman. I define Ahumanism as a view of the world and of others that denies to any person their humanity, destroys human community by the evil ingenuity of hate inspired and hate inspiring violence, and revels in the shedding of blood as the discourse of despair.

In protest, and in prayer I name these four young people; as a follower of Jesus, I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. And while I believe, passionately believe, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and that such are to be "called the children of God", I pray that such faith will be given grace to persist in the face of such Ahumanity as the murder of our young people to secure any human goal, political, religious, tribal or personal.

Of such murderers I try to pray, and struggle to pray, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do…"

For these young people and their families, I pray sharing their tears, may their pain and rage, their anguish and despair, their wailing and tears, become streams in the desert and the hope of blossom in the wilderness.

All three faiths honour Isaiah and his vision of light for the nations. May the loss of these for young men be impetus for peace in Jerusalem. 

Muhammad Abu Khdair 16,

Naftali Frankel, 16,

Gilad Shaer 16, 

Eyal Yifrach, 19,

I play five a side football every Friday night and did so lat night. Nobody got bitten. Most of us know each other well, I dedicated as babies several of the twenty somethings who play. Sometimes people come we don't know which helps us have full numbers for the teams. None of them have ever bitten another player. On display every week from the more mature players (I'm not the oldest, yet) is waning athleticism, glimpses of silky skills from a past era, energetic medicocrity, and people who still live the dream of scoring goal of the season. But nobody bites. Trampled, kicked, tripped, dead legged, hit with the ball in the face, stomach, or what Paul might call the lesser unmentionable organs, but no, not bitten.

The global furore about Luis Suarez biting an opponent for the third time, this time in the World Cup, witnessed by hundreds of millions, surrounded by up to 150 media cameras, raises all kinds of questions. Such behaviour has to be punished for the fairness of the game, the safety of the players and as a statement of human values. So I have no difficulty approving the ban, the statement made by such a sanction, and the determination of FIFA and other football authorities to uphold standards.

But when all that is said, and done, not enough is said, and nowhere like enough is done. Where in all this media frenzy for scandal, gossip and outrage is there the note of redemption, forgiveness, hope, change, and a future for Suarez, who is a man, a human being and only then a gifted footballer?

His club, Liverpool knew and know he has a pattern of behaviour that threatens his career, and creates enormous pain for his opponents, his club and himself. What have they done for him since the last time? What have they said or done since the latest incident? Why is it only TV pundits who honestly use the terminology of help, therapy and change? To his credit the Italian player he bit thinks the punishment excessive. But it isn't the punishment that is excessive, it is the help and support towards change that is scandalously inadequate. At the very least, he is a huge marketable commodity, why wouldn't you do everything to protect your investment? And while I'm on about marketability, here is a dream scenario unlikely to become realisable.

Supposing, just supposing, the major sponsor who dropped him within 24 hours of the FIFA judgement, had taken time to think about the person luis Suarez. And supposing they had spoken with him, and were able to announce that they had put in place a programme of treatment that would enable the issues to be addressed and the player to regain the levels of control needed to continue his career. Supposing they had suspended his use advertising their product for a given but limited period, and suspended his income for that time, and given him the chance to play in the most important game of them all – the life he lives, the person he is and the possibilities of change and redemption – I use the word non theologically at this stage?

The irony is his major sponsor is a betting firm, they make their money by people gambling, taking risks, believing against the odds. The betting industry rakes in billions from the influence of people like Suarez, and they need him to be clean, admirable, an embodiment of all those dreams every gambler will recognise. I wonder, I just wonder, what would have happened if this sponsor had announced their support for Suarez the man, and their outrage at his behaviour, condoning nothing. And as a sign of their integrity (should such a quality exist at such a high corporate marketing level) and commitment to their product (the image of Suarez) they announced that this is a man with whom they have done business; he is obviously needing help to continue his career and they will support him as he seeks it? And supposing, just supposing, Liverpool had done something similarly redemptive, supportive but also addressing the concerns of sanctions, discipline and indeed justice?

The more emotional and passionate fans of Suarez, including his own national fan base, have described his treatment as being thrown out like a dog from the tournament. Their metaphor is unfortunate, but their concern for the human being is laser beam accurate. Oops sorry, laser beams are also now an issue following the one that was used to distract the Russian goalkeeper while a corner was being taken – that's another story.

But for now, I am simply saying, as a football fan, a used to be no bad footballer, a human being, and yes as a Christian; it's time Suarez' club, sponsors, and team mates recognised this is not solvable by sanctions. The man needs help, support and a framework of hope to deal with issues that are immensely destructive but surely not incapable of resolution.

Anyway, that's my take on football, biting and the redemptive imagination so absent from the machinations of a world increasingly inhumane in its responses to anything that threatens the bottom line. Feel free to disagree, but no biting comments please…

The persecution of Christians in China is seldom as overt and blatant as in this BBC news video. Of course the official line is about planning permission, safety concerns and other bureaucratic explanations. But…..

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake…."

Tonight I prayed for these brothers and sisters, grateful for their faith, courage and witness.

Wilfred Owen remains one of the authentic human voices railing at catastrophe. The First World War was a cataclysm of military and political stupidity, pride, and power intoxication, whose cost was borne by millions of human beings, dehumanised into killing and being killed. This year of centenary remembrance, never celebration, brings Own back to mind. I remember reading Dulce et Decorum Est as a young teenager in Second Year and the rest of the day feeling the weight of sadness and bewilderment that poem so viscerally evokes – along with anger. In Seeing Salvation, by Neil MacGregor and Erika Langmuir, there is a thoughtful and unsettling chapter, 'From Vistory to Atonement'. It deals with the humiliation and suffering of Jesus, and the way First World War British soldiers responded to wayside crucifixes in Belgium. One of Owen's letters is quoted, and I hadn't come across this before:

Already I have comprehended a light which will never filter into the dogma of any national church: namely, that one of Christ's essential commands was, Passivity at any price! Suffer dishonour and disgrace, but never resort to arms. Be bullied, be outraged, be killed; but do not kill…

Christ is literally in no man's land. There men often hear his voice. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life – for a friend.

Is it spoken in English only and French? I do not believe so.

These are words of uncompromising pacifism, written by one who had witnessed the alternative demonstrated with unprecedented ferocity. They are utterly unreasonable words, leaving the human community dangerously open to abuse, claiming the authority of the crucified God, and therefore decisively subversive of all our rationalisations, justifications and qualifications. Could I do what Owen says Christ demands? Could I deflect his challenge by appealing to his inventive exegesis? Or should I hear these words, read the Passion Story once more, and ask, what does it mean, really mean, to take up my cross daily, and follow faithfully after Christ?

The photo was taken in Aberdeen Botanic Gardens.

I read this and was angry, ashamed, upset, compassion for the man collided with outrage at any system that allows this, ever. Right now I have no idea what to do with how I felt that would make any difference, that would be a Christlike response, that would be practically useful and make this kind of atrocious lack of humanity not only unthinkable but impossible in a humane society. I am open to suggestions as to what a Christian is to think and do with what we feel when we read an account like this, of work done in our name by our own Government agencies. I will think about this, and post in a few days whatever light might come.

For now, ….. Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie eleison

………….

Excerpt

An 84-year-old immigration detainee suffering from dementia, who was declared unfit for detention, died in handcuffs, a report has discovered.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) compiled the report after visiting Harmondsworth immigration removal centre, near Heathrow airport.

Inspectors condemned "shocking cases where a sense of humanity was lost" at the centre in west London.

The Chief Inspector of Prisons said some services were "poorly managed".

The Prison Reform Trust said the centre had "forgotten the basic principles of humanity and decency".

HMIP inspectors compiled the report after an unannounced visit to the centre last August.

Handcuffed detainees

The 84-year-old was taken to hospital in handcuffs, where he died while still in restraints, inspectors found.

Doctors said the Canadian man was unfit for detention or deportation after diagnosing him with Alzheimer's disease, but he was not released and no referral was made to social services.

Medical notes described him as "frail, 84 years old, has Alzheimer's disease … demented. Unfit for detention or deportation. Requires social care".

He had been in handcuffs for almost five hours when he died, the report said.

The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman is preparing to investigate his death and inquest proceedings are being conducted by West London Coroner's Court.

You can read the whole sad story here on the BBC website

Went into an Oxfam Book shop it doesn't mattter where, and had a good browse. I saw several books and a CD I would have bought, but to be honest and upfront about it, they were far too expensive. I know the second hand book market and the prices that are fair and sensible, and the Oxfam pricing policy seems to sit at the highest end of that.

That comment and what follows is from a friend of Oxfam. I am fully committed to the work of Oxfam. It's a charity I've supported for many years. The money raised is crucial to the wellbeing and improvement of life for many thousands of people, and at times Oxfam's work is a life-saving intervention. They need all the money they can get. So why did I not buy the books that interested me.

Put simply, and probably a bit controversially, I don't like being ripped off, and I don't think a charity should price itself out of the market. A CD that is £4.99 on Amazon, was deemed a collector's item and priced at 10.99 second hand.  A two volume set of theology was twice the price of another second hand book seller who deals in theology and is not cheap. Add to this that Oxfam as a charity receives discount on local authority rates, is staffed by volunteers, and receives its book stocks as donations and at no cost. So why is that stock priced so high?

Now I did buy a book – it wasn't a bargain but it was a fair price which I was glad to pay. It was an anthology of Aquinas' theological writings, an Oxford hardback published in 1954. In that deal there were two satisfied parties. So I wonder if there's a need to be a bit more realistic in pricing policy, and demonstrate an interest in the customers satisfaction as well as the main mission of making a difference in human life and welfare in a fragmented unequal world – actually the main mission is possible because of customer loyalty, volunteer time, public generosity in donations and a fine track record in using funds with strategic generosity and care.

One other point easily missed in these austerity days. Charity shops started as places where those on low incomes and others struggling to get along in life could go and find warm clothing, and other necessities for knock down prices compared with the retail market. In the interests of maximising income and profits, there are now policies of only taking what is 'like new', or labelled designer, and these are priced beyond those who are looking for recycled good quality clothes at prices affordable to them. Nobody is saying charity shops should become clearance houses for worn out cast offs. But a balanced stock, with an eye to local customer base, and a commitment still to supporting the poor whether here or overseas, would restore a balance that is in serious danger of reducing the credibility of charity shops as places where the word charity stiull retains someof its meaning as gift and grace to the poor.

The need for a review of pricing policy and customer service is increased when you come across articles like this.

Human greatness is difficult to define, much more easily recognised in the way a life is lived. Even then, greatness may not be recognised during a person's lifetime, or come late in life. I listened to a Glasgow man on Radio Scotland, speaking with deep emotion and obvious honesty about the way he used to think of Nelson Mandela. As a young man he had seen a photo of Mandela, the convicted and imprisoned "terrorist", and he thought he looked an evil man. Ever since, he has been suspicious of the press, of self-serving State rhetoric, and the use of legislative policy to disqualify protest and resistance. If ever the word repentance was appropriate it was in this man's brief comments.

I guess he wouldn't have known the Greek word metanoia – why would he. But he didn't need a lexicon – his tone of voice and what he said made it clear. Once he discovered the truth that Mandela stood for, and understood the oppression and dehumanisation of institutional apartheid, his commitment and way of looking at the world shifted, turned round.

That one reflective Glasgow punter says as much about the gift that Mandela was to our world as all the other prepared tributes of the good and the great around the world. When Glasgow conferred the freedom of the City on Mandela it articulated the strong currents of respect for justice and commitment to human dignity that run deeply in the Scottish psyche. And is perhaps more to be reckoned with given our own shadowy past as an arm of empire, with implications in the slave trade.

My own tribute to Mandela is the recognition that when a man comes out of prison and greets the world in the name of peace, then we are hearing the voice of human greatness. When that same man accepts the burdens of political responsibility and makes it his life's goal to bring reconciliation, justice, peace and a future to his people, and to all people, then the world is compelled to recognise that same greatness. Only then are we helped towards a definition of what we mean by human greatness. Yet it may be just as much the disposition of such a man, the humility and humour, the compassion and seriousness of purpose, the self-effacing determination to bring righteousness and peace into conversation, that is the real benchmark not only of human greatness, but of political courage and moral integrity focused on human welfare.

It would be wrong to portray Mandela as a saint, secular or otherwise. But in another sense it is both essential and required of us, that we see in such a man, the mysterious quality of leadership that convinces the heart as well as persuades the mind, that here is someone who understands the tragic complexities of human society, and the moral perplexities of political justice. In my lifetime only Martin Luther King shares the stature, ambiguity and inspiration of Mandela as one whose own suffering and capacity for forgiveness were so obviously transformative of our shared life. And in the great vision in the book of Revelation, where people of every tongue, tribe, nation and people stand in praise before God, somewhere in that crowd is an ex-prisoner, dancing to African rhythms, and celebrating the great reconciliation of the peoples of the earth. Or so I hope. You can see a foretast of that dance here.

My relationship with social media is fairly simple. Apart from this blog I don't do Facebook or Twitter. There are various reasons; I understand the positives and how social media can enrich lives, share information, create and stimulate discussion, use social, psychological and moral leverage through numbers. I also understand the negatives, obsession with trivia, inflated self-importance that others actually care what we think, do, feel, buy, or say, the diversion of time, energy, attentiveness in keeping the audience current with the detail and progress of our inner climate and weather of our circumstances. Then  there is the abuse of Twitter to abuse others, and with very little control over content, or sanction for such abuse.

I with millions of others celebrate the announcement of the new £10 note commemorating unarguably one of the greatest writers in English Literature, Jane Austen. The news that Caroline Criado-Perez, who campaigned for a woman's image on the next generation of banknotes, has been subjected to sexist abuse and threats of rape raise for me not so much the social usefulness of Twitter, but its social menace as long as it remains unpoliced, unregulated and open to such criminal tactics without fear of sanction. This comes at the end of a week of wider controversy about filters and controls on access and content on the Internet. Caroline Criado-Perez campaigned, responsibly, imaginatively and in my view rightly for women to be depicted on our currency on the same basis as men, significance for our culture, contribution to our history, and representation of figures of national and international importance. Jane Austen is an obvious, popular and even a brilliant choice.

The idea that a woman can be abused and threatened by such violent and obscene language, anonymously and with impunity, is first a violation of her person, and also a real threat to wider society. Not only so; she campaigned within a democratic culture, enjoying the privileges and obligations of freedom of expression, responsible discussion, informed debate and shared agreement. When a person is intimidated, threatened, made the focus of co-ordinated hate and violent expression by hidden haters of women then two essential principles of a healthy society are broken. Respect for persons consists in the recognition and respect for the other, and a willingness to live in humane co-operation for the welfare of the community, the common good. Respect for individual freedom enables a community to live in creative accommodation through discussion, democratic decision-making and the compromises necessary to reflect the diversity and interests of the community. 

The abuse of Twitter violates both respect for the individual, and the balance of individual freedom with community obligation – rights always bring obligations. The problem is the current failure of law and regulation to not only to control the content of Twitter (which is not what I am asking), but to identify and bring to account those who use it as a weapon against others (which I am asking). The demand is now overwhelming for legislation to enable the prosecution of criminal uses of Twitter (and personal threat of rape is in anyone's definition criminal). During the London riots those fomenting riot on Facebook were traced and prosecuted; using Twitter to threaten rape is surely just as socially corrosive and criminally significant?

Twitter has issued reassuring statements – but they lack legislative authority and are couched in obvious self-interest. Whatever decisions are now made, it is outrageous that a woman, any woman, should be threatened with rape by a man, any man. No circumstances justify that; and no democratic Government can ignore the need to change the rules of what is not a game, but a socially embedded reality. Even as this is being written, Twitter is seeking to reassure two women MPs that it will do all in its power to ensure that Twitter complies with the Protection from Harassment Act.

As a Christian I would want to say more – about the nature of communication, the power of communication technology to change and shape that most human of qualities, communication through words, body language and presence; about the virtues of integrity, compassion, wisdom, humour, love and friendship; and about what it means to be made in the image of God and therefore made as essentially communicative and social beings. But for now, I simply want to record my own sense of outrage, and my demand for more than words from Twitter. Interestingly, and ironically, Twitter users have started a campaign against those who sent the scurrilous messages – maybe they can force Twitter to introduce controls. 

Related articles

Twitter action urged after threats