Category: Current Affairs

The past week I've been on holiday here in Westhill and finding ways to rest, amuse myself and keep in touch with the world. The events of the week were dominated by what has been happening in Libya, and the brutality of dictatorships menacingly reflected in the actions of those who bring dictatorships down. It remains to be seen what will happen to the Arab Spring and the kinds of political settlements that will emerge. The test of them will not be their suitability to Western ideals and advantages, but how far new governments serve the interests and the welfare of the peoples who live in these lands.

I've been re-reading the letters of Thomas Merton, and especially those he wrote in the early 1960's when peace and non violence were the major theme of his writing and he was in trouble with his superiors for being concerned about things that were no business of a contemplative monk. It is one of the signs of Merton's Christian obedience that he tried to live within the strictures of the censors but also be obedient to his sense of being called to witness for peace, non-violence and the reconciliation of nations.

His Cold War Letters, and essays written in the 60's are passionate arguments against nuclear weapons, the Vietnam War, racial segregation in the US, and the lust for power and things that lies at the heart of the affluent society. What he would say about Iraq, Afghanistan and other military adventures can easily be imagined – at times he felt the anguish of the world as a spiritual desolation at the core of his being. But out of that desolation grew a perennial trustfulness that human stupidity and brutality were not and never would be final arbiters of God's good creation. Here he is at his most theologically and existentially confident – and from a man like him we have much, so much, to learn if we are to live wisely and follow responsibly after our Lord.

Nonviolence is not for power but for truth. It is not pragmatic, it is prophetic. It is not aimed at immediate political results, but at the manifestation of fundamental and crucially important truth. Nonviolence is not primarily the language of efficacy, but the language of kairos. It does not say "we shall overcome" so much as "This is the day of the lord, and whatever may happen to us, He shall overcome". 

WHAT KIND OF GOD?

The toy plane comes out of the blue

and zaps the tower as it would do

in comic or cartoon, but this is true.

 

A hundred storeys up, stick people

wave little banners of forlorn humanity,

already fatally diminished

to their gawping fellow-kind

before the crumbling hell engulfs them.

 

It's said the terrorists' god

unfazed by death of innocents

will take his fanatics to unending bliss.

What kind of god is this?

Lesley Duncan, poem first published in The Herald, September 13, 2001

I remember exactly where I was when the news came on the TV after the first plane – I watched the second plane.

The world changed that day.

For those of religious faith, religiously justified violence, distorted and destructive devoutness, was from that day seen as blasphemy writ large;

for those of no religious faith, the events of that morning was a powerful persuasive that the idea of God is dangerous, inhuman, and when fuelled with hatred combusts in an evil worse than any secular ideology.

Today analysis and comment on 9/11 seems unnecessarily presumptuous – better to remember, and to learn, and to pray. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself…." What kind of God is this?

Our culture has degraded the ancient art of rhetoric to strap lines, sound bytes and spin. Or the noble art of rhetoric is diminished by the prior qualifier 'empty' or 'mere'. But every now and then there are examples of rhetoric at its best – humane, memorable, impassioned, reasoned, persuasive and above all ringing with truth. It happened yesterday.

Tariq Jahan, father of one of the young men killed by a hit and run driver while trying to defend their homes and businesses, spoke with immense courage and passion, out of deep wells of grief and bewilderment, but with a human dignity that was profoundly moving. And at one point, with a weight of seriousness perhaps only a bereaved parent could carry, he said, "Step forward if you want to lose your sons. Otherwise, go home."

That is rhetoric – humane, memorable, impassioned, reasoned, persuasive and above all ringing with truth. And it is rhetoric that is neither empty nor mere – it was the instinctive skilled use of words that have been heated in the furnace of grief and tempered with the pain  of loss. And at that moment, all that was in me was standing alongside Tariq Jahan, a noble and conciliatory presence in the midst of much that was ignoble, ugly, destructive and hate filled. Cultural pluralism, inter faith dialogue, ethnic diversity, racial equality, multiculturalism, communities of respected difference – use whatever phrases you like, a moment like that dissolves all our political posturings and sociological analyses and politically correct discourse and what we are left with is the cry of a human heart, a wail of anguish reduced to powerful words intended to stop such pain spreading to afflict others.

And as a follower of Jesus I stand alongside those neighbour friends in our country, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish and of no professed faith, and I hear that cry, and cry in fellowship at such tragic violence and inexplicable absurdity.

And today in Parliament the debate is about what caused the riots, how to control them, what to do in the aftermath. In time the reflection and learning will begin. Are the rioters angry or having fun? Is it the loss of civic and police control that has created opportunity for freeloading? Why are so many people angry, destructive and hell bent on vandalism and looting? What is the connection between economic recession and civil disorder? All seem to be agreed it is 'sheer criminality'? But that still doesn't answer the question why this upsurge in violent discontent, destructive looting, burning homes and businesses as the articulation of what – hatred, the resentment of the have-nots, the fun of knowing that looking through broken plate glass at a jewellers shop window filled with watches, those who have no money realise 'yes we can'? All of these, some of these, a mixture of these.

But what is beyond dispute is that three young men were killed in an act of callous violence while protecting property. And throughout the news coverage much has been made of the cost to the retail trade and the cost of repairing and replacing burned, stolen and wrecked goods, houses and cars. Not counting the cost of the police responses, estimated now into many millions not easily available in a service with huge cuts looming. There is something both sad and salutary when the cost of rioting is measured in the financial cost of burned houses when the real cost is communities searing with hostility against the system. Something unacceptable about cliches like 'feeling the full force of the law', when amongst the lawbreakers are those who reckon they have nothing to lose in a society that in their experience offers no hope, no open doors, no future chances to participate and have a stake in the local community and the wider society.

I'm excusing nothing. The riots and the looting, the violence and intimidation, the appetite for inflicting damage on people, the outpouring of hostility and rage – all are wrong, destructive and no part of a society in which mutual respect, consensual policing and political freedoms are key principles. But neither is there an excuse for political decisions and social consequences that are driven by an economic agenda that has ignored the actual costs to people who already see much of their lives constrained and controlled within a system that leaves little room for maneouvre and no effective voice for change.

It is against that chilling contrast of riot and politics, of criminal looting and inflexible economic policies, of community violence and communities under pressure, and the collision of despair and hopelessness on one hand, with the inequity of opportunity and life chances on the other, that the deaths of three young men are to be seen. because they died as a direct result of violence fomented on the streets. That violence needs not only explanation as to its originating motives; that violence also needs a response of moral vision and imagination to create a social environment where the dominant voice that is heard is not the roar of rage and the sound of violence. Blessed are the peacemakers – peacemaking is not populist politics, it is a social, moral and communal necessity. It is also the church's theological, ethical and missional imperative.

An update on this remarkable man can be read here

I've never been reticent about criticising the salaries of Premier League footballers. Even today the transfer saga is about a player who might have to take a cut in his £52,000 a week salary. That's not to mention (not much anyway) those good few who are on a six figure sum weekly. That such a culture of greed and reward has grown exponentially is due to a distortion of values that makes greed good, and life valued by income, and a topsy turvy worldview about what is important and what sustains human community, welfare and flourishing.

But sometimes other stories need to be aired and heard. One of them concerns Gareth Barry of Manchester City whose story you can read over here. The short of it is that his luxury villa in Spain is to be made available to sick children for a holiday. Now I know that Barry earns more in a week than three nurses doing overtime can bring in for a year's shifts. But kindness remains kindness when someone chooses to be kind when they could have done otherwise. Generosity is not diminished because someone is rich. In fact Jesus told a story about a rich man who never noticed the poor man on his doorstep.

Now the theological question this raises for me is – Is kindness a fruit of the Spirit whether or not the person who acts kindly is a self-confessed Christian? Is generosity, compassion, kindness a sign, even a sacrament of the work of God? And if so, is the Spirit subverting the culture of greed by persuading, encouraging, guiding those who profit from it to make gestures of generosity, to turn disgrace into grace, to give for no other reason than it's a good thing to do?

I hope Gareth is well rewarded by letters and texts from children saying thank you for unlooked for fun and happiness.

Quite often I have a fairly opinionated comment to make on some of the happenings and people in the news.  The hacking scandal is as big a news story about the news media as has broken in my lifetime. The photo is of someone who seems to just have taken the blinkers off and discovered what has been happening – or maybe they are sunglasses behind which to hide behind – I know about the double adverb, but there has been so much hiding behind going on already.

Victims of the London bombings 5 years ago, and their families; relatives of soldiers killed in action; a young woman found murdered; countless significant figures in politics, show business and other areas of public life; and around 4,000 others. Privacy invaded to sell the news product.

A paper editor gives evidence in a showcase Scottish contempt of court trial, and compromises the judicial process by being directly involved in the goings on of the News of the World. Questioned by Parliament, police and the Scottish Court, innocence was maintained. More difficult to maintain after recent revelations. The same person was communications director for our Prime Minister until earlier pressures of this case forced a resignation 'to clear his name'. Right.

Journalists and police officers set up an information exchange mart! Evidence can be bought, obtained by illegal hacking, exchange hands for upwards of £100,000 pounds over 5 years, and thus the criminal justice system is compromised. 

The same institution (the police) believed to be independent of vested interests, carries out an investigation into hacking allegations – 5 years ago – identifies three or four culprits but gives the News of the World otherwise a clean bill ot ethical and legal health. Then the revelations of this week.

The paper is shut down, the CEO keeps her job, hundreds of innocent people lose their jobs on the strength of a mobile phone call from somewhere high up, maybe the chief priest of the current worshippers of the ruthless Gods of money, media, image and information technology. And this will make it all ok then? Right.

I am not qualified to comment on such a convoluted, systemic, chronic,illegal, immoral and repulsive culture of mocking indifference to human rights, human feelings, human suffering and humane standards of respect and justice in the treatment of people.

Another case of comment is superfluous. Why? Because we are not stupid – it doesn't need spelt out. This is evil – unambiguously, and without qualification as wrong as media power, invasive journalism and ruthless news gathering can get.

What is the passion which is so strong we are willing to forego the comforts of a conventional existence? In her Reith lecture Aung San Suu Kyi answers this in one word. But it is a word that makes all other words possible – freedom. And it is a word which has always exacted the price of suffering to uphold, defend, achieve and live in freedom.

This lecture is more than, indeed is nothing like, a scholarly reflection on the concept of freedom. Nor is it primarily autobiography though it is a deeply humane story of the forming and growing of a self that recognised the imperative to be free and to work for the freedom of others. Aung San Suu Kyi speaks of inner freedom, spiritual liberty which is to live in harmony with your own conscience. But the purpose of inner freedom is to work towards the liberation of other people in practical human life, to uphold the basic human rights of others, and to defend the right to live without fear and oppression. To carry on despite fear is a stance of unimaginable courage for us who live in an open democracy, and she speaks with great moral authority and insight about the inner dynamics of conscience, fear, courage and action.

This is an enlightening, ennobling and crucially significant voice speaking from expereince, about those matters without which human life cannot flourish. Humanity, humility and humus are all semantically related – they are morally related too, because out of the humus of humane and humble resistance and protest, grows a moral imperative that cannot finally and ultimately be eliminated by force, whether brute force or sophisticated systems of surveillance and suppression. This woman is a beacon of hope, a moral exemplar of political courage at its higher levels of ethical and humane development. Listening to her lecture is a profound education in political responsibility and moral courage. Incidentally, humour comes from the same semantic range – and the humour and laughter in her interviews and question responses is just one further dimension of this woman who embodies the patience, tenacity and hopefulness of the struggle for the freedom of her people.

You can hear the lecture and discussion here on Radio 4 Iplayer.

Ok. Being a politician brings many challenges.

Not the least of them is how you balance personal ambition with the public good.

And then there's the further tightrope walk of representing your constituency and toeing the party line.

And just to make it interesting there are the power games within the party.

Which brings us to today's revelations about the two Eds – Balls and Milliband.

And the two B's,  Blair and Brown.

Despite all denials, it was obvious Brown and Co. Ltd wanted to take over, indeed put out of business, Blair and Co Ltd.

But the denials still came – party unity, that electoral Eldorado, was promoted, insisted upon, demonstrably (so they said) solid, and the Brown v Blair was a healthy competition rather than a hostile takeover.

And then The Telegraph publishes memos which read like the blueprint for a coup d'etat, complete with process, rationale and timescale.

And the denials still come, and then the two Eds both say its ancient history and we must look to the future not the past.

Excuse me?

Since when was five years ago ancient history/

And why should we now trust the two Eds who clearly scripted their own amateur version of Julius Caesar, complete with back-stabbing scenes and public declarations of loyalty that resonated with anti-integrity?

My problem is simple. When did it become acceptable to lie, to plot against others, to lie, to carry out the coup, to lie, to gain the goal of power in the party, and then when the lies are exposed, to call it ancient history and therefore irrelevant.

So now having disposed of that teeny wee piece of petty minded nonsense called evidence (the memos) by labelling them a distraction, we are now to pay attention to what is being said by the two Eds.

Sorry. one of the important lessons ancient history teaches us is not to make the same mistake twice.

Which we would do if we trusted the two Eds.

For the record – I am not anti-Labour.

I am however for integrity.

And I insist that as a voter my moral perception, common sense and social intelligence be taken seriously.

And I can smell cynicism from a mile away, let alone when it is waved in my face.

What Ed (both of them) needs to remember is they too will soon be ancient history.

 

I've waited a few days for the impact of the Panorama programme to be tempered from legitimate and understandable outrage, to a recognition that there is something deeply wrong and dangerously present in our society. The evidence of vulnerable people being abused, tortured and humiliated was sickening, and the systemic nature of this inhuman treatment in one ironically named care home, should rightly outrage – actually for me it went beyond mere anger. But more worrying and more urgent is the too easily trotted out reassurance that this is an isolated incident, that this is so unspeakably apalling that it is inconceivable it is a pervasive practice rather than a one off aberration.

Now without assuming abuse of vulnerable people in care is common, and certainly assuming that the majority of those involved in the care of others are indeed carers, compassionate and professional, protective and supportive in  their relationships,there is still reason to pause, and think. The images on the Panorama programme are of such graphic inhumanity that the deeper question to ask is about the way our money conscious, value seeking, service cutting, economic efficiency indexed culture recovers a more humanly centred approach to our communal life. Jose Comblin the Catholic priest who has written so much on justice, the oppressed and the vulnerable, once said a cultre and society was to be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable people. It isn't an original thought – it is however, a fundamental one for a civilised society that claims to pursue human flourishing.

There is a corrosive functionalism operating, and a dehumanising process of calculation at work, when the bottom line, the barcode, the budget and the deficit, are the primary drivers in choosing priorities for how we spend our money. Money wouldn't stop what happened in that care home. But monitoring and control agencies are strapped for cash; private care homes are businesses that need to survive and exist for profit; and therefore quality and number of staff is influenced not by the needs of those cared for but by the business considerations of a private company or owner; and that is one of the levers that often works against the best interests of those vulnerable people for whom we are responsible.

What I found so distressing was the pleasure, the perverse and degrading spectacle of power and strength being used to hurt rather than comfort, to humiliate rather than affirm, to be cruel rather than merciful, and to laugh at weakness rather than embrace and support – in short to despise instead of love, and to wound instead of defend. You have to be so culpably lacking in that common bond of humanity that sees the dignity and worth of each person to inflict such misery. So beyond budgets and money, bottom lines and profits, there is another issue for me, and it is theological. What has our society replaced the imago dei with? If you remove the belief that each person is made in the image of God, has an inherent dignity and worth, that each human being is a reflection of the creative love and imaginative purposefulness of the Creator, what do we put in its place. All kinds of substitutes – human rights, equality and justice before law, legislation about the sanctity of life, the belief in each person's right to choose and decide for themselves – always of course assuming that when some people are less able to use such personal autonomy our society puts in place advocates, befrienders, carers and provisions to maximise their freedom and affirm their dignity and worth.

But underlying all such provisions there has to be in those responsible for the care of the vulnerable person such atttiudes as compassion, respect and recognition of worth; there have to be values and virtues that affirm the humanity of the carer as well as the cared for; there has to be a way of looking at people that sees and understands the incalculable treasure that each human being is. Is that idealistic? Probably. Unrealistic? I hope not. Because what those images of inhumane abuse showed is what happens when a person's dignity and worth as a human being is discounted, and the consequences of such callousness is a dehumanising of the person, and a further raid on the social capital that keeps us safe, respectful and compassionately interested in the wellbeing of others. So even if our secular values  don't have the underpinning of the concept of imago dei, that each person has an intrinsic and inviolable value as a being made in the image of God, there is a need for those who are trained in the care services to be educated in the valuing, respecting and understanding of those people for whom they will care, for whom they will be responsible, and to whom they will be responsive, as one human being to another.

And yes. What happened was criminal. The consequences should be within the justice system. But the exposure of this atrocious practice, which went on over time, should alert us to the likeliehood that other people are equally at risk; and should encourage us to ask deep questions about what it means to form and shape the atttitudes of those entrusted with the care and protection, support and befriending of those amongst us who need much from us, and who give much to us.