Blog

I used to play football in the local park, in the red ash playfield, on the tarmac of the school playground, in the farmer’s field, even on proper football pitches – the worst that ever happened was skint knees, and later torn ligaments because of a bad tackle. That an 11 year old boy, playing football in a pub car park, is shot with a handgun and killed by another young man riding on a BMX renders all the usual inner mechanisms of moral response stuck. I’ve no idea what to think, or feel, or write – pain, anger, sorrow, revulsion, compassion, – an entire spectrum of human response to inhuman behaviour seems redundant.

But it wasn’t an inhuman person who did this – it was a young human being who acted out the ultimate violent fantasy of ending the life of another human being. As easy as the flick of a joystick – more fun than the limits of virtual violence – translating the familiar comic book violence of movie and computer game onto the streets where real people can die. The causal connection between a person’s preferred entertainment, and the patterns of their own behaviour is not established, researchers tell us. There is a lack of evidence-based documentation so we’re told.

There is a longstanding way of viewing reality called the Scottish Commonsense School. One of its assumptions is that we can trust the evidence of the common experience of people. Human experience of the real world whether moral, intellectual, emotional or volitional, is to be seriously considered as itself having evidential value. The desensitising of a young mind, by exposure to regular pre-packaged violence in a virtual environment, or the pumped up messages of music that celebrates violence, is not, on any common sense reflection, irrelevant to patterns of behaviour where inexplicable and lethal violence result in dead people – in the real world.

There are profound and disturbing changes taking place in the moral fabric of our culture. Now and again events such as Dunblane, the killing of Jamie Bulger, the knifing of Damilola Taylor, and….and….. You see, what was once unusual and unprecedented becomes a list, routine, a series of heinous crimes so that the word heinous becomes a regular adjective, its edge blunted by constant use.

Whatever else I might want to try to say or think, as a Christian, I instinctively consider two theological truths that underlie such happenings like theological bedrock –

1. Sin is a catastrophic reality in the human story and can always visit the inexplicable and unimaginable upon the innocent; and as evil it must never be explained away by finding more comfortable explanations in social determinism, psychological profiling or genetic programming. The killing of a boy playing football was an act of hellish indifference to the reality of a human life.

2. Redemption is that action of God, creative and costly, in which the suffering and death of Christ demonstrate the inexplicable and unimaginable mercy of God, on creatures capable of that same hellish indifference to human suffering and death. I believe in sin; I believe in redemption through Christ even more. As my theological mentor and hero James Denney never tired of asserting – sin is not the last reality of the universe – here it is, eternal love, bearing sin.

For this young boy, Rhys Jones, for his mother who held him as he died, and for all touched by this tragedy, I only offer words of perplexed intercession –Lord in your mercy.

This is Emily Miller, aged 25. The attempt by the Daily Mirror (Labour’s most loyal fleet street paper) to plant Ms Miller, an investigative journalist, deep in the Conservative Party Election Campaign office is comical, cyncical and morally problematic. Opinions of right or wrong are divided depending on the polictical colour of the commentator. What kind of ethics could sensibly be applied across the board to regulate investigative and undercover journalism, which by definition succeeds by deceit, stealth and ultimately betrayal of those whose trust has been won? Some of the most important exposures of corporate wrongdoing, animal cruelty, human trafficking, human rights abuses, public risks linked to commerical activity, were possible because resourceful and at times very courageous reporters, went undercover to film, report and expose. In these cases it would seem that the acts of deceit required were morally justified in order to expose and perhaps end a far greater evil.

But that is surely different from trying to infiltrate a political party, to access confidential information and expose private conversations, internal strategies, personal weaknesses of key individuals, as a way of undermining the credibility of a party preparing for election in a modern democracy. The democratic process itself is surely weakened by such party-biased activity. Those who think it is ok to do this, or attempt to, should at least ask the old Kantian question of whether they are prepared to universalise this behaviour – that is, is gaining employment and trust by deceit, in order to harm the election prospects of a legally established political party, a principle which can be morally countenanced in all situations?

I’m uneasy with answering that question too dogmatically- the British National Party stands for policies many people (and I’m at the front of the opposition queue here) would call extreme, dangerous, and would oppose on deep ethical, social, and for me also theological grounds. Much of what we know about the inner psyche of such an organistaion only comes to light when exposed in its unguarded moments, when it’s members feel safe to reveal and speak the truth of who and what its members are. But doesn’t that too influence the outcome of the democratic process by targeting unpopular parties to publicise them at their worst? Yes it does – and again I’m not sure I want to condemn such journalism as morally unacceptable.

But the Daily Mirror’s little ploy was nothing so morally courageous. If successful it would have been the equivalent of planting the best surveillance equipment possible at the centre of a mainstream political party, for the purposes of harming reputations, disabling leadership, discrediting stated intentions, stealing ideas, undermining strategies by publicising them, or internal hesitations about them. The Fleet Street editor on BBC news on Sunday morning, who thought it was a pity the young woman was ‘rumbled’, and praised the attempt, has no ethical qualms about such a tactic. But surely there is a difference between the journalist who infiltrates a racist organisation, or a dog-fighting culture, or the dangerous underworld of trafficking in vulnerable people, and a reporter whose intention is not to expose criminal behaviour in the interests of public safety and human compassion, but to weaken, undermine and inform on employers through systematic betrayal? Or am I naive?

One further thought though. Supposing such a paper planted several of its reporters in various Christian churches, with the remit of establishing how genuinely we live the Gospel of reconciliation, live out the community of love rooted in the Triune Love of God, practice compassion for the poor,engage in prophetic critique of all that diminishes human life locally and globally? What would such a journalist be able to publish, to the embarrassment of the Name we honour, the one we follow and worship? Intriguing thought – undercover journalists seeing if these Christians are half as serious about the Kingdom of God as they want others to believe….and if so where’s the evidence? MMHHHMMM?