ESL #3: Political

Another of the books I'm reading on my ESL is Justin Welby's Reimagining Britain. A couple of days ago the Archbishop fronted the publication of a report by the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice having served on the Commission. You can read ++Justin's remarks at the launch of the report here. ++Justin has copped quite a bit of flak for his involvement in the report, however, he isn't backing down and he explained earlier in the year why he is involved in politics in an article entitled Is Mixing Faith and Politics Worth The Risk? The Archbishop's argument is summarised in this paragraph:

We need to face our challenges today with a fresh vision that is confident, practical and outward looking. We need to be witnesses to the good news of Jesus Christ in word and deed, as the churches often are (although the also often get things wrong) and also by speaking of a vision for society. I passionately believe it can be done.

Ian Paul has written an interesting blog post reflecting on the Archbishop's involvement with the IPPR Commission. I always find Ian's blog posts well considered even if I don't always agree with him. In this piece Should Christian Leaders Pronounce On Political Positions? Ian raises some important questions for those of us who are Christians in positions of leadership to reflect upon. Ian concludes his piece by commenting:

I think Christian leaders should avoid making pronouncements that align themselves with particular economic or political policies. I cannot remember anyone ever saying ‘Oh, I see that that bishop votes Labour—I think I had better find out more about this person Jesus’.

My concern is that as Christians we may end up with a pietism which limits our faith to the private and personal and abandons whole areas of public life and policy to others. As Christians I believe we have a responsibility to speak into the public square about the values and priorities of the Kingdom of God and we have a responsibility to make concrete proposals about what that means in practice. It's all too easy to sit on the sidelines criticising the proposals of others, but if we aren't prepared to put our necks on the line and take responsibility for the sort of society we want to live in then we forfeit the right to speak.

I remember very well the criticism the Church of England received when it published the Faith in the City report in 1985. At the time the usual arguments telling the C of E to keep its nose out of politics were plentiful; Normal Tebbit denounced the report as Marxist and inadvertently ensured it became the C of E's best selling report! However, the report was a considered response to the plight of the urban poor at a time of turmoil in our nation and made practical proposals for both Church and State to implement. Despite the initial hostile reception, in subsequent years many of the proposals were adopted by both the government and the C of E. The report certainly had a big impact on me as I embarked on ordained ministry. Should Archbishop Runcie, who commissioned the report, have kept out of politics and public policy, I don't believe so. I regard the Faith in the City report as a prophetic document that challenged both Church and State and helped shape debate, policy and action regarding the plight of our inner cities at the time. By the way, to those who responded to the recent IPPR report by saying the Church should put its money where its mouth is, by 2005 the C of E had invested more than £55 million supporting nearly 4,500 faith based projects in some of the poorest parts of our nation. This money was distributed through the Church Urban Fund set up in response to the Faith in the City report.

One final comment. The Taxpayers' Alliance responded to ++Justin's involvement with the IPPR commission with the following tweet:

The Archbishop seems to have forgotten Jesus' command to ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s’. He should stick to his important theological work and keep out of politics!

In context Jesus is telling those questioning him to pay their taxes, which is both a political and theological statement, and one which goes against everything the TPA seem to represent.

Branded

It's been a long time since I watched BBC Question Time as I simply can't afford to keep replacing the television. Last night's line up looked set to make my blood boil, with Russell Brand pitched alongside the ubiquitous Nigel Farage, so I avoided it. Then this morning I read this by Russell Brand on Facebook. Though I don't agree with Brand's 'don't vote' agenda this is well worth a read.

Answer time
I’ve just got home from recording bbc tv’s political debate show Question Time and if you saw it and found it anti-climactic, I know how you feel.
Nigel Farage in the flesh, gin blossomed flesh that it is, inspires sympathy more than fear, an end of the pier, end of the road, end of days politician, who like many people who drink too much has a certain sloppy sadness. Camilla Cavendish who I was sat next to, seemed kindly and the two politicians from opposing parties, that flanked Dimbleby melted into an indistinguishable potage of cautious wonk words before I could properly learn which was blue and which was red. For my part I sat politely on my hands, keen to avoid hollering obscenities after a week of hypocrisy accusations and half-arsed, front page controversy.
Only the audience inspire passion or connection. Humanity. The usual preposterous jumble that you see in any of our towns, even if groomed and prepped by Auntie, they comparatively throb with authenticity opposite us, across the shark-eyed bank of cumbersome cameras.
The panelists have been together in “the green room” chatting, like before any TV show, and that’s what QT is, a TV show, a timid and tepid debate where the topics and dynamism of the discussion are as wooden and flat as the table we gamely sit around.
There is a practice question prior to the record, so the cameras can position and mics can be checked and the audience can practice harrumphing. In my dressing room at the modern Kentish theatre, before my sticky descent, I can hear them being prepped “ask questions, quarrel, applaud, keep those hands up”.
The practice question is a soft ball rhubarb toss about clumping kids or something and even though I’m determined to concentrate like a grown up, my mind drifts back to the Canterbury Food Bank I visited before arriving, partly to learn about it, as a researcher told me there might be question on them and first hand knowledge would make me look good, and partly because, y’know, I actually care.
In a warehouse in a retail park Christians and sixth formers assemble bags of what would rightly be considered “staples” in a kinder world. Tins of food and packets of biscuits and it’s good that we’re near to the “White Cliffs of Dover” because it feels like there’s a war on and the livid coloured packaging goes sepia in my mind as Dame Vera scores the melancholy scene.
The Christians are as Christians are, kind and optimistic. The donations come from ordinary local folk “We get more from the poorer people” says Martin, a quick deputy in a cuddly jumper. “More from Asda shoppers than Waitrose.” As I contemplate cancelling my Ocado (or whatever the fuck it’s called) order Chrissy, the lady who runs the scheme says that this year people who received packages previously have now donated themselves. Previous recipients often volunteer an all. Here older folk and the students diligently box off the nosh and I determine to give them and their heartening endeavor a shout out on the show and my writhing, nervous gut begins to settle.
Chrissy explains how the Caterbury Food Bank has brought people together, not just those it feeds but those who volunteer. “It seemed like a good way to worship Christ” she says. Martin, who I am starting to gently fall in love with, observes that supermarkets profit from the enterprise as Food Bank campaigns encourage their customers to spend more there. “Do you think there’s an obligation for the state to feed people?” I ask “or room for a bit more Jesus kicking the money lenders out of the temple type stuff?”
They smile.
Many who use their facility are people that work full time and still fall short, others have suffered under “benefit sanctions”. “They’re very quick to cut off people’s benefits these days” says Martin.
“People think that Canterbury is affluent, but all around us are pockets of the hidden hungry”. The hidden hungry. “I’m gonna use that” I tell him as I scarper. He makes a very British joke about charging me as I get in the car and I tell him I nicked some jammy dodgers, and we laugh so that’s alright.
I think about the hidden hungry as I settle into my QT chair and get “mic’d up”. Farage entered to a simultaneous cheer and jeer, they cancel each other out, like bose headphones and leave an eerie silence. David Dimbleby says something about it being panto season and someone in the audience says “oh no it isn’t” and I love him for it, even though I’m pretty sure he was one of the UKip cheerers.
And a pantomime it is, well not so entertaining, no flouncing dames or doleful Buttons or rousing songs, just semi-staged tittle-tattle and bickering. The only worthwhile sentiments, be they raging or insightful come from the audience, across the camera bank. The man who brings up politicians pay rises, the man who demands I stand for parliament (so that he could not vote for me judging from his antipathy), the mad, lovely blue hair woman who swears at everyone, mostly though the woman who says “Why are we talking about immigrants? It’s a side issue, this crisis was caused by financial negligence and the subsequent bail-out”. This piece of rhetoric more valuable than anything I could’ve said, including my pound-shop Enoch Powell gag. More potent than the one thing I regret not saying because time and format did not permit it. That the people have the wisdom, not politicians, that the old paradigm is broken and will not be repaired. That the future is collectivised power. Parliamentary politics is dead, they, it’s denizens, wandering from aye to neigh from Tory to UKip know it’s dead and we know it’s dead. Farage is worse than stagnant, he is a tribute act, he is a nostalgic spasm for a Britain that never was; an infinite cricket green with no one from the colonies to raise the game, grammar schools on every corner and shamed women breastfeeding under giant parasols. The Britain of the future will be born of alliances between ordinary, self-governing people, organised locally, communicating globally. Built on principles that are found in traditions like Christianity; community, altruism, kindness, love.
In the “practice question” Farage says it’s okay to hit children “it’s good for them to be afraid” he said. There is a lot of fear about in our country at the moment and he is certainly benefitting from it. But the Britain I love is unafraid and brave. We have a laugh together, we take care of one another, we love an underdog and we unite to confront bullies. We voluntarily feed the poor when the government won’t do it. These ideas and actions that I saw in the food bank and across the camera bank are where the real power lies and this new power is the answer, no question about it.

Strident atheists

An interesting comment popped up on my Twitter timeline in response to an article in The Guardian originally published on Monday. The Guardian piece argued, not very convincingly, that British fears about Islamists and Saudi fears of atheists are two sides of the same coin. Now this is a fairly typical Guardian Comment is Free piece and displays the lack of rigour in argument typical of the genre. However, I was interested by a comment tweeted in response to the piece by Douglas Murray in which he asked:

Can anyone name an atheist who has carried out a suicide bombing or beheaded someone in Saudi? Anyone?

The journalist David Aaronovitch, an atheist, whose writing I usually respect, wrote:

Sure atheists don't actually behead anyone, but you have to admit they can sometimes be a bit strident. 

Now this is a line that often gets trotted out by Richard Dawkins and his chums. 'Atheists are much less harmful that religious people. We might shout a bit from time to time, be a bit strident, but we don't harm anyone'. Except of course that isn't quite true. If you happen to be a Christian living in the self declared atheist state of North Korea you aren't just treated to a few harsh words, you are more than likely to end up in labour camp or worse. The intellectual western European atheist might argue that it is unfair to link his or her views with North Korea and suggest that those pesky North Koreans aren't really atheists anyway. It's the old Jedi mind trick 'These aren't the atheists you are looking for'. Fair enough but isn't this the same argument used by many religious people who argue that the worst manifestations of those claiming to be of their faith aren't really true believers. Consider, for example, the many Muslims who would denounce and reject the expression of Islam manifested by the IS in Syria and Iraq. Or consider the many Christians who would disown the nonsense regurgitated by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Some atheists are no more than a bit strident, not unlike some religious people. However, some atheists aren't averse to a spot of murder and mayhem, as anyone with even a basic grasp of political history knows, and pretending they weren't or aren't really atheists is frankly disingenuous.

Comet Watch

This afternoon a little spacecraft called Rosetta delivered probe Philae onto the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. It is an extraordinary scientific endeavour and given the comet is some 300 million miles from earth the precision of the operation is astonishing. Even more astonishing is the fact that all this was accomplished without the presence of Professor Brian Cox telling us how amazing it all is.

However, news has begun to filter through that the two harpoons which were to be fired into the comet on landing in order to secure Philae to its surface haven't deployed. No doubt the boffins are hard at work trying to diagnose the problem and come up with a solution. I have a couple of suggestions.

First of all check that Big Bang Theory's Howard Wolowitz wasn't showing off to an undergraduate somewhere in the space centre. Howard has previous on this score with the Mars Exploration Rover.

Secondly, it may be that Philae detected on landing that 67P isn't really a comet but a Star Whale, hence the reluctance to fire the harpoons. In which case this is a job for Dr Who and let's face it he needs something decent to get his teeth into at the moment.

Anyway, I'm sure the geniuses at the European Space Agency will get things sorted given the brilliant job they've done so far. Now I wait for Nigel Farage to pop up on the BBC to explain how it would all have been so much better and cheaper if we'd done it without the rest of those pesky Europeans.

Dear Prudence

This week at morning prayer we began to read the book of Daniel. The first half of the book is a fascinating and challenging story about people in exile at the mercy of a capricious despotic ruler. This morning I was struck by a particular verse which has stayed in my mind. To set the scene, in chapter 2 King Nebuchadnezzar has a dream and calls for his spiritual advisers, a rather motley crew of charlatans, to tell him what the dream means. To spice things up a bit the king insists that his 'wise men' not only interpret the dream but tell him what the dream is and if they can't then they will be torn limb from limb and their homes reduced to rubble. Of course the advisers can't meet the king's request and so the order goes out for all the wise men in Babylon to be put to death.

Unfortunately the king's decree includes Daniel and his mates. The chief executioner Arioch looks for Daniel and when he meets him this is Daniel's response:

Then Daniel responded with prudence and discretion to Arioch, the king’s chief executioner, who had gone out to execute the wise men of Babylon; he asked Arioch, the royal official, “Why is the decree of the king so urgent?” Arioch then explained the matter to Daniel. Dan 2:14

The words that jumped out at me were that Daniel responded 'with prudence and discretion'. Now I don't know what your response would be to being told that you are about to be torn limb from limb on the orders of a murderous tyrant but I don't think mine would be prudence and discretion. I'd have run for my life or failing that ranted and raved at the injustice of it all and probably thrown in a few accusations at God for allowing the situation to arise in the first place.

I think about some of the more irrational, unjust and, at times it seems, malicious decisions which our political leaders make, here's an example in case your wondering what I'm on about, and my gut reaction is to have a good rant about them. Thanks to social media it's quite easy to have a good rant and it's helped by the fact that our rulers don't have the power to order us to be torn limb from limb, though I suspect one or two of our MPs would quite like that option at their disposal. On reflection I find myself pondering whether prudence and discretion isn't the better response. For Daniel it opened up the way into the king's court and a place of influence for the common good.

What does it mean to respond in a prudent and discreet manner on Twitter I wonder?

Couldn't resist the sublime Siouxsie and the Banshees' version of The Beatles' Dear Prudence.

video nasties

Well it didn't take long for Mike Read's obnoxious UKIP propaganda song to bite the dust. What could possibly have gone wrong singing a song titled UKIP Calypso in a mock Jamaican accent for a party whose main claim to fame is being anti-immigration? We were then treated to the spectacle of UKIP claiming the song's withdrawal had damaged a charity. However, the charity aspect seems to have been dreamed up after the event and the charity concerned, The Red Cross, said they didn't know anything about it. Here's a taste of this particular video nasty.



Political videos like this are nothing new. Who can forget Tracey Ullman singing My Guy featuring Neil Kinnock.



Then there was the classic I Feel Liberal - Alright starring David Steel. Nearly as embarrassing as his party conference speech when he uttered those immortal lines 'Fellow Liberals, go home and prepare for government.'



Not to be left out Prime Minister David Cameron has done a turn with One Direction in a medley featuring Blondie's One Way Or Another and The Undertones Teenage Kicks. Now I might have been willing to post a video of Cameron but I draw the line at One Direction, some things are too tasteless for the Treehouse even if it was for Comic Relief.

And finally my all time favourite. Nick Clegg's I'm Sorry. Admittedly this wasn't really what Nick intended, a bit like the promise he is apologising for having made, but this is a classic.




Other suggestions welcome.

asylum #Iraq

Last Friday the government decided that it does have a responsibility to intervene in Iraq with military force.  I have today written to my local Member of Parliament Simon Burns asking him to request that relevant government departments ensure that additional steps are taken to alleviate suffering in Northern Iraq and to provide refuge and sanctuary to those most in need. I would encourage as many people as possible to do the same. It is shameful that our country lags behind so many European and other countries in responding to this need. Put quite simply, if we have a 'moral' obligation to bomb then we have a moral obligation to offer sanctuary to those who are the innocent victims of violence in Iraq.

If you wish to join me in lobbying your local MP on this matter details can be found here.

The full text of my letter is as follows:

Dear Mr Burns

Responding to the humanitarian crisis in Northern Iraq

I am deeply concerned by the gross human rights abuses being committed in Northern Iraq that is seeing thousands of religious and ethnic minorities displaced from their ancestral homes. The forced and bloody exodus of Christians and other religious minorities underlines most graphically that freedom of religion and belief, a right set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is being denied in the most violent and systemic way possible.

I welcome the humanitarian steps the Government has taken to date, but given the distressing pictures and reports that continue to come from Northern Iraq, I fear that our collective efforts are failing those most in need.

 

The level of humanitarian aid must be increased significantly and its delivery must be accelerated. No effort should be spared to protect all groups forcefully displaced by this conflict. The Government should follow the example set by other European governments and make provision to provide asylum to those that are unable to return to their homes for fear of persecution and death.

As a constituent in your area, I ask you to raise these concerns with the Secretary of State for International Development and other relevant departments to ensure that additional steps are taken to alleviate the humanitarian suffering in Northern Iraq and to provide refuge and sanctuary to those most in need.

Yours sincerely,

Revd Canon Philip Ritchie

Food Bank: here's how it works

In light of yesterday's announcement about a proposed freezing of working-age benefits and the incessant negative comments about Food Banks from some of those who will be implementing the freeze, here's how they work.

Our Food Bank Distribution Point is open on Tuesday afternoon's between 1-3pm in Bell Street Hall, Bell Street, Great Baddow. CM2 7JR.

For further information about Food Banks check out The Trussell Trust site and follow on Twitter.

16+

In amongst so much negativity surrounding the Scottish Independence Referendum there was one significant point of light and hope for the political processes of the United Kingdom. The referendum gave 16 and 17 year olds the vote and this has galvanised discussion about enfranchising this age group for future elections. I have always thought it strange that a 16 year old could be expected to pay taxes and yet not have a vote in elections which may determine how those taxes will be spent. One of my earliest political recollections is the phrase 'no taxation without representation' and it has stuck with me through the years since I began studying political history. I remember casting my first vote in a national election in 1979 at the age of 19 and it was a momentous time both personally and nationally. Needless to say the party I voted for didn't get elected.

Some people have questioned whether a 16 year old is ready for the weight of responsibility that comes with voting. Yesterday I heard two young people discussing the right to vote on BBC Radio 5 Live. One had voted in the Scottish referendum and the other, from England, wanted to know what it was like. It was one of the most insightful pieces of political discourse that I have heard in a long time and the presenter stopped asking questions and sat back to let them engage in debate. I was driving my daughter, also 16, during the broadcast and as it came to an end she simply nodded and gave a thumbs up. We then continued to discuss the issue on the journey. Both the contributors on radio and my daughter demonstrated more political maturity in those few minutes than you will hear across the party political conferences over the next few weeks. If you don't believe me just look at this morning's headlines about Ed Miliband's speech, which have focused on whether he has blown his chances of electoral victory, not because of the merits of policy, but based on his ability to memorise a speech! Is that what we have come to? Sadly, I fear the answer is yes, when the chief quality determining our political leaders seems to be how much like Hugh Grant they can look in a television debate.

So I'm in favour of giving votes to teenagers like my daughter. Let's face it, they can't make more of a mess of this politics business than we have managed over the years.

Update: You can hear the debate on 5 Live referred to in this post at 1:51:25 here.

born of frustration

I have to confess to being more than a little frustrated by the Scottish Independence Referendum. It seems to me that whatever happens decisions will be made which directly affect my family and community and yet I will have no say in them.

If Scotland votes 'yes' to independence then that will have an impact not just on Scotland but on the whole of the United Kingdom in all sorts of ways. If you don't believe me take a look at what happened in the financial markets when the first positive 'yes' opinion poll was published.

If Scotland says 'no' then the political leaders of the mainstream parties have already made vows
(they can't use the word pledge after Nick Clegg so spectacularly broke one over tuition fees) which again will have a huge impact on all of us. They have done this without any consultation with the electorate. I would suggest that their complacency and then horror at the prospect of the break up of the U.K. led them into panic promises which they had no right to make and have no mandate to deliver. If you doubt this then ask yourself why they left it until the last minute to publish their prospectus for Scotland, and for the whole of the U.K., so late in the campaign.

I am not saying whether the Scots should vote yeah or ney, though I find it ironic that a 17 year old French schoolboy studying in Edinburgh gets a vote and Sir Alex Ferguson along with many other Scots doesn't, but let no one suggest this doesn't affect the rest of us in the U.K..

Then this morning I read the opening canticle from Morning Prayer and it put things into a wider perspective. The canticle is Psalm 67 and it is a healthy reminder that ultimately politicians and the electorate including Salmond, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, you and me are accountable to a higher authority.

God be gracious to us and bless us • and make his face to shine upon us,
That your way may be known upon earth, • your saving power among all nations.
Let the peoples praise you, O God; • let all the peoples praise you.
O let the nations rejoice and be glad, • for you will judge the peoples righteously and govern the nations upon earth.
Let the peoples praise you, O God; • let all the peoples praise you.
Then shall the earth bring forth her increase, • and God, our own God, will bless us.
God will bless us, • and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.

Carry On Knitting

Yes folks the Carry On team have come out of retirement to bring you another classic, Carry On Knitting. Unfortunately some of the old cast are no longer with us but do not fear for Her Majesty's Government have provided some up and coming 'characters' to keep you rolling in the aisles. The new feature stars Brooks Newmark the charities minister who takes a novel line on the work of the Third Sector. Here's the minister's statement during a recent conference:

We really want to try and keep charities and voluntary groups out of the realms of politics.

When they stray into the realm of politics that is not what they are about and that is not why people give them money.

The important thing charities should be doing is sticking to their knitting and doing the best they can to promote their agenda, which should be about helping others.

I laughed so much I nearly dropped a stitch! Oh, wait a minute, it seems Mr Newmark was serious about this. Does the minister have the first idea about what work goes on in the charitable sector of our nation? Is this what the government is thinking of when it talks about the Big Society? Don't get me wrong, knitting plays its part, and many have benefited from this particular charitable good work, but this comment ranks alongside other gems, including the PM's favourite 'calm down dear', in its patronising ineptitude.

As for the suggestion that charities should keep out of politics, it seems the minister believes it is O.K. for charities to help clear up the mess in our society but not ask any awkward questions about what has helped create the mess in the first place. In other words, leave the politics to the professionals because they know what they are doing and the rest of us should be grateful for their whit, wisdom and expertise. If you doubt their brilliance, just have a look at PMQs any Wednesday lunchtime, now that really is a Carry On.  

Anyway, I'm off to dig out my knitting needles and I know just what to do with them, however, it won't involve the use of any wool.

 

Voiceless

Plenty of other people have commented on the resignation of Sayeeda Warsi from David Cameron's cabinet over the government's stance on Israel and Gaza. The only comment I would make about that issue is I haven't the first idea what our government's stance is, apart from the £8billion in arms that we flog to Israel.

What is perhaps just as concerning is that as a result of Baroness Warsi's resignation we have lost one of the only voices in government prepared to speak up about persecution, not least Christian persecution, across the world. In her resignation letter Warsi specifically mentions this issue and I for one am grateful for her work in this area. I contrast it with the silence emanating from the rest of government about which I have previously posted.

The media has been a bit more vocal about the issue of Christian persecution. This morning the BBC Today programme even managed to find a couple of minutes in its busy schedule for a piece in which Christians connected with the eradication of the church in Mosul, Iraq, were able to articulate their concerns. Here's the clip from the Today programme.



One final thought. Some of the more right leaning Christian social media commentators were very quick to disparage Warsi and RT others attacking her. They might like to reflect that we have now lost the one person in government who was prepared to speak up consistently for our brothers and sisters in Christ whose very lives are at risk across the globe.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Wreath row

Had a brief look at my Twitter timeline this afternoon to discover a row breaking out about the wreath laying ceremony to commemorate the outbreak of World War One. It seems that the Prime Minister had written a personal message for his wreath while the Leader of the Opposition had not. It didn't take long for some of the commentariat to begin attacking Ed Miliband for not caring or being incompetent. However, it seems that none of those laying wreaths, apart from the PM, had the opportunity to write a personal message and the hand writing on each of the wreaths looks identical. This hasn't stopped the criticism and the cheap political point scoring in the mainstream and social media. Is this where our public political discourse has ended up when even commemorating the war dead is seen as a legitimate excuse to attack political opponents? If you want to know why so many people are disengaging from mainstream politics you need look no further.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Deafening silence

I've been doing a spot of Googling in the rare free moments during our church Holiday Club week to catch up on responses to the murderous onslaught being endured by Christians in Mosul, Iraq. I particularly wanted to read what our leading politicians have had to say. So here's what I've found:

"                                                              

                                 ".

Now it may be that Google has been asked to remove links to our leaders' comments under the new and rather bizarre 'forgotten' policy in operation at the behest of an EU court but I doubt it. Frankly, it looks like our leading politicians would rather pretend it just isn't happening.

I don't often agree with Damian Thompson, however, this is an important and timely piece. In Iraq, ancient Christianity lies in ruins. But who cares?

Lord Sacks may have a point.

During a debate on religious freedom in the House of Lords, the former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks suggested that social media may play a part in inflaming conflict. His comments were made against the background of rising anti-semitism in Europe and the escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza. A particular comment was highlighted in reporting by Christian Today:

"In all this we recognise the power of the internet and social media to turn any local conflict into a global one. We see how the wilful confusion of religion and politics allows soluble political problems to be turned into insoluble religious ones. We witness the ignorance that allows people to mistake one strand within a faith for the whole of that faith, and we pay a high price for our fascination with extremists. It is the worst, not the best, who know how to capture the attention of a troubled and confused world."

In response to Lord Sacks' comments Vicky Beeching, a proponent of social media, made the point that social media is a neutral tool:

"It's crucial we remember social media is a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or for harm. The tool itself must not be blamed; that points the finger in the wrong direction. We must take responsibility for what we do with that tool."

On the surface this seems a legitimate point, however, I'm not so sure. The same 'it's only a tool' argument is used by the proponents of fire arms. 'Don't blame the gun, blame the people who misuse the gun'. There are of course legitimate uses for a gun, for example in the control of vermin. Yet, as a society we recognise that there is something inherently dangerous about a gun which leads us to impose tight restrictions on its use. We also recognise different types of gun carry different risks; the air rifle popping off manually loaded pellets is different from a rapid fire machine gun capable of delivering 60 rounds per minute and one causes much more damage than the other.

Is the same not true with the means of communication? There is a difference between a comment piece written after considered reflection and published several hours later after review by an editor and a comment fired off in instant response to a news story in 140 characters via Twitter. Consider the growing list of reporters who have discovered this to be true having published a gut reaction comment on social media which they have then had to retract almost as quickly as their bosses have transferred them to another story. I am not suggesting that comment pieces published in the more traditional media cannot be ill informed, inflammatory or even dangerous; the Daily Mail remains a constant testimony that they can. What I am suggesting is that certain forms of communication by their nature may lend themselves to this problem.

Bex Lewis in the same article recognises the distinction between different media while still defending social media when she observed:

"Social media can be considered like a brick – you can build houses with it, or you can throw it through people's windows. People are doing both with it, as people have always done with every communications medium. Yes, social media allows messages to move faster globally, and those who speak loudest will often be listened to. Social media, however, gives the opportunity to speak back, particularly if people gather together."

I am a supporter and user of social media. I blog, tweet and use Facebook and yet I have a slightly ambivalent attitude towards each of these forms because of the misuse I observe and some of the damage that can be done. The most recent case has been over the 'debates' about the situation in Gaza on social media. I have become increasingly uneasy about the way Twitter interaction seems to polarise opinions and suggest you must be either for or against a particular side in the conflict. My timeline has been full of 140 character or less statements, sometimes with links, about a situation which is far more complex than can be communicated in a sentence. The ability to nuance an opinion is lost and it has been easy to read some tweets as being anti-semitic or uncritically supporting of Israel. Isn't this part of what Lord Sacks was seeking to highlight?

Update: If you want an example of a more nuanced approach on social media then check out Sometimes it's hard to write anything funny.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

In a good cause

A few weeks ago our church held a promise auction to raise funds for Mid Africa Concern and in particular for a hospital in Uganda that is facing severe financial hardship. We were pleasantly surprised by the amount raised and I suspect some of us were caught up in 'auction bid fever'. It was a fun evening with a canny auctioneer and plenty of laughs.

And then I caught sight of what went on at the Tory Party summer ball. Apparently someone paid £45,000 for a bottle of not very good champers signed by Margaret Thatcher. Someone else forked out £160,000 to play tennis with the Prime Minister and Mayor of London (not in their official capacities of course which would be, well how do I put this, corrupt). There were plenty of other extraordinary amounts bid for various items and all in the good cause of... The Tory Party. I see the successful bidder for the tennis match was a banker married to a former minister in Vladimir Putin's government.

I'm writing this listening to the Genesis classic Selling England by the Pound while feeling slightly sick and I don't think it's because of the croissant I've just eaten.

PC or not PC isn't the question.

Over the last few weeks the blogger Cranmer has been having a dig at the Church of England and has developed a particular narrative. During the European elections he attacked the House of Bishops for being too pro Europe in a piece entitled The Church must now reconsider its Europhile bent. I won't get into that particular debate as the bishops are more than capable of defending themselves as bishops Pete Broadbent and Nick Baines ably demonstrate.

Today Cranmer published a post entitled Why does the church preach a PC gospel of middle-class respectability? The simple answer is it doesn't. Cranmer's blog post is prompted by a report into the educational challenges facing white working class children and the Church of England's response. I don't know where Cranmer lives or in which church he worships but he is clearly detached from the reality on the ground in white working class parishes up and down the land. Why am I qualified to speak about this? I was born in white working class Kentish Town in 1960 where my father worked as a London City Missioner. I grew up on the streets of white working class Belfast in the mid 1960s. I've lived in Brixton, Hull and Durham. My title post as a priest was in a white working class parish in Thurrock. My second parish was a church plant on a white working class urban overspill housing estate. My third post was on the white working class Becontree Estate in Barking and Dagenham in the 1990s. I am still good friends with parishioners in these places. I have many close friends and colleagues serving as priests in white working class parishes today. They are often the only professionals working and living in these parishes, serving sacrificially and faithfully proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ. What Cranmer describes is a reality I simply do not recognise. The Church of England does not preach the gospel he claims.

What I do recognise is that there are particular challenges regarding the educational under-achievement of children living in some of the most deprived parts of our country and the church takes these very seriously. Cranmer has the grace to acknowledge this in his article. I am glad Cranmer recognises this commitment because through its church schools the Church of England is working hard and dedicating resources in some of the most challenging parts of our communities.

So what is Cranmer's real problem with the Church of England. I think he gives the game away in this revealing line:

While His Grace welcomes this development, he can think of one or two bishops who might find this sort of language a bit Ukippy, not to say BNP-ish or 'racist'. Funny - isn't it - how the Church permits matters of social justice to be determined and developed by ethnic identity, but those policy issues of considerable concern to the working class - such as immigration, housing and employment - may not.

For Cranmer the issue is all about ethnic identity and so he completely misses the point. The Church of England is concerned about the education of white working class children, not because they are white and working class, but because they are children precious in God's sight and deserving of the same life chances as anyone else. The tragedy is that many of these children have struggled generation after generation long before immigration was an issue. I hope and trust that if the report Cranmer refers to had highlighted that children of another ethnicity had been shown to be those struggling most educationally, then we would be committed to addressing those particular needs. The truth is that there are children in other communities, for example some Afro-Caribbean communities, who are also really struggling and the church is just as committed to meeting those needs through its church schools.

It is also wrong of Cranmer to claim the Church of England is not concerned about immigration, housing or employment. If you want to know how concerned the C of E is about housing and unemployment read Faith in the City published in 1985, look at all the work done arising out of that ground breaking report since and the real difference it has made to people's lives, including those from white working class backgrounds. Also check out who was most opposed to that report and you may be surprised to discover it was Cranmer's political party. So much for being concerned about white working class people.

Finally, we come to immigration. The Church of England is concerned about immigration as am I. I am particularly concerned about the way we seek to scapegoat and blame the other for the ills of our society; pandering to prejudice; stirring up hatred; fostering resentment and pretending that if only we could keep x, y and z out then all our troubles would be over. What Cranmer is concerned about is not that the Church of England isn't concerned about immigration but that it isn't concerned in the way that he wants it to be. Well, here's an example of how we have got into a mess as a society over immigration.

The Diocese of Chelmsford is linked with several Anglican dioceses in Kenya. We take groups of curates there regularly and greatly value our partnership. We are amazed at the welcome, hospitality and generosity of our brothers and sisters in Kenya, giving so much often from so little. This year we are holding a year of mission and outreach in our diocese and as part of that we invited a group of Kenyan Christians, including some ordinands, to come and share with us in mission during June and July. All of the ordinands invited have had their visas turned down and only two women invited have been granted visas. These people are not a risk to our country, they are not going to seek residence here because they are called to ministry in their own country. We wanted them to join us as our guests. Yet, despite all the assurances given and appeals for common sense to prevail, visas have still been refused. And so the Church of England in our diocese will be impoverished because of the pernicious application of rules which suggest we are a country that trades hostility for hospitality, rejection for welcome and suspicion for generosity out of fear. Of course the Church of England is concerned about immigration!

The Church of England is concerned about issues that affect all the people who live in our parishes and we address those issues day in and day out. That is not about being PC, it is about proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ to all people, whatever their ethnicity.

The shaming of our political class

What I hadn't counted on when posting yesterday about the free edition of The Sun, was the desperation with which our political leaders crave the support of Murdoch's press. All three leaders of the main parties were photographed holding up their copy of the freebie and the only reason can be that they are courting its support in the lead up to next year's general election. Not long ago we were being told that our politicians were ready to take on the vested interests in the press; it was time for them to be held to account and properly regulated. And yet, at a time when former News International employees, including editors, are on trial accused of various crimes connected with phone hacking, there are Dave, Nick and Ed gurning at the cameras clasping the newspaper. Business as usual then.

Teeth on edge

I heard some sad news yesterday. My wife was booking an appointment with our dentist and was informed he had left. Recently I had a very painful abscess under a tooth and he saw me twice within an hour of phoning the practice, carefully explained the problem and prescribed the appropriate treatment. There was no charge for the appointments and x-rays, though there are basic charges for my usual treatment. He was an NHS dentist. His practice has recently moved to new premises in the same village with the latest equipment, good parking, a comfortable environment and the clincher... free WiFi! What more could we ask for. He was brilliant and POLISH and as a family we are going to miss him. The good news is there is a new dentist at the practice and if she is anywhere near as good as him we will be very happy. She is also Polish.

We moved to our dentist's practice a few years ago because our previous dentist, who was British, had written to advise us that his practice was going private and he enclosed a load of bumf about our options for taking out private insurance. Call me old fashioned but I have a commitment to the National Health Service and am happy to pay my taxes so that people can access treatment free at the point of need. I recently had some gastric problems and again received excellent treatment from specialist physicians in a recently rebuilt hospital. The whole process from booking appointments, prepping for the procedures, the endoscopies and the after care were first class and again in a friendly comfortable environment that made an unpleasant procedure as bearable as possible. First class service on the NHS and don't ask me to list the number of different nationalities of those involved in my care.

A couple of thoughts. Yes, there are problems with the NHS. That's no surprise given the size of the organisation and the demands made of it. But as we seek development and improvement let us not lose sight of the jewel of the nation that we already have. Danny Boyle was right to celebrate the NHS at the heart of the Olympic Games opening ceremony. So let's stop selling it off on the sly piece by piece so that we have to pay again for what we already own.

And I want to say thank you to my Polish dentist for his friendly manner, his excellent treatment and for the contribution he has made to our family's well being and to the local community he has served. When I hear people moaning about immigrants swamping our country, read the pernicious propaganda distributed by UKIP and listen to politicians from the other political parties targeting immigration as the great ill of our age, it is my Polish dentist that comes to mind and I am ashamed of the quality and tone of our public discourse on this matter; it really sets my teeth on edge.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Leaked: Today producer's notes

At no expense I have managed to acquire the production notes and running order for today's Today programme on Radio 4.

6.00am News headlines: UKIP triumphant; everyone else pants.
6.10am Interview by Evan with the victorious Nigel Farage.
6:20am Education: Will national curriculum changes reflect UKIP's domination of politics.
6:25am Sport: Have UKIP snookered their opponents?
6:35am Immigration. Theresa May and Yvette Cooper say 'we agree with Nigel'.
6:45am Finance: Robert Peston speaks to UKIP's economic's spokesperson - Nigel Farage.
6:55am Weather: The sun is shinning out of Nigel Farage's...
7:00am News headlines: UKIP this, UKIP that...
7:10am Should Nadine Dorries defect to UKIP
7:20am Will David Cameron call an EU referendum now?
7:25am Sport: Gary Richardson on Nigel's runners and riders for Aintree.
7:35am Whatever happened to the Green Party?
7:45am Nick Robinson on why no one voted for anyone except UKIP
7:50am TFTD: The European Union is the beast of Revelation
8:00am News headlines: Bombing in Syria, Iraq & Afghanistan - the UKIP foreign affairs spokesperson Nigel Farage gives his reaction.
8:20am Evan interviews UKIP's glorious leader Nigel Farage again in case you missed it earlier.
8:30am Sport: Is it time for UK football clubs to withdraw from Europe? UKIP's sports' spokesperson Nigel Farage shares his thoughts.
8:40am Toynbee, Delingpole and Brandreth analyse the UKIP manifesto - when we can find the fag packet it was scribbled on.
8:50am Culture: Will Spielberg follow up Lincoln with Farage?
8:55am Nick Robinson on how UKIP have rewritten political history.

If you think this is a spoof have a listen to this morning's broadcast.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad