|
CSM is Blogging.
In this section of the site, we'd like to highlight blogs from some of those involved in CSM. You'll find details of our Director, Andy Flannagan's blog and others too.
You can also check out our front page for latest Tweets and Twitters.
|
|
Ungrateful , untrustworthy Africa
'Cynical armchair know-it-all pigs, with hands clenched at the bottom of their mean pockets, shouting at the telly that they know better.' That was my favourite quote from news commentary last week. It was uttered by comedian Marcus Brigstocke, on Radio 4's The Now Show. He was talking about comments from members of the public on last week's allegations that part of the money raised for famine relief through Live Aid had been diverted to buy arms for Ethiopian militias.
You yourself may have experienced some of the public reaction. 'You see?' many people seemed to be saying, 'I knew it was all a scam! Africa does it to itself once again. We [meaning the wealthy, non-African First World] should stop helping.' And, in a sense we should. We should have done so a long time ago. We should have stopped 'helping' before we went in and 'civilized' Africa, the way King Leopold of Belgium 'civilized' Congo by killing over ten million people or the practice we helpfully gave them of using amputated human hands as proof of military work done (and the thousands of amputees that left behind).
We should have stopped helping before introducing the 'chicotte', a whip used to 'punish' Africans who did not go along with slave-life. This whip, made of dried hippo hide, was turned to a sharp-edged corkscrew at the end and applied to bare buttocks, where 20 strokes resulted in unconsciousness and 100 strokes would likely kill the ungrateful African being civilized.
We should have stopped before 1904, when Germany put down a rebellion in Namibia by issuing an order to troops that every man of the Herero tribe, armed or unarmed, be shot. We (the generous colonial benefactors) could also have stopped before poisoning their wells and leaving entire communities to die slowly of thirst in the desert (or be bayonetted and clubbed to death with rifle-butts).
We should have stopped before supporting the madder-than-a-bag-of-cut-snakes-on-PCP dictator, Mobutu, after helping him seize power from a democratic but anti-us-helpful-benefactors government in Zaire. We should have stopped before using his image, the one we created, as an excuse for imposing our own capitalist dictatorship in many African states in the 80s. The one in which 'structural adjustment' meant those nations were forced to stop funding public education and our own companies were allowed to devastate their agriculture sector, buy up vast tracts of land for a pittance and privatize water to the point where they actually owned the rain.
Oh I know what the apologists for colonialism will say: we brought roads. We brought order, and anyway, they did far worse things to each other before we came along. All true. But why, then, do you take such a hard line on the 'order' brought to bear in Zimbabwe, Burma and Iran? If you want to make a civilization omelette, after all, you need to kill and torture tens of thousands of brown people, right? The fact is, because we like to forget what has been done in the name of all this 'help' we have given Africa, we genuinely think it was, on the whole, positive. It was not. And it did not stop there.
Today, forest populations are forced off land they have held for centuries so that French, British, Portuguese and Belgian companies can cut down thousand-year-old forests and transport the wood to Europe. A vicious war in Eastern Congo continues, largely because it makes it cheap and easy to export the minerals we need for mobile phones and games consoles. And wealthy countries' security forces continue to run violent and illegal 'anti-terror' operations on African soil. Yes, we really should stop helping.
Good governance and transparency are important. Mistakes will be and have been made. But if we use that to justify an attitude that suggests we stop sharing even the pathetically small amount of our obscene wealth that we currently do with those starving or suffering in Africa, then God is not with us. And I myself agree with Marcus Brigstocke when he calls us 'pitiless b******s'.
|
Jonathan Langley, 11/03/2010 |
Add a comment
|
Permalink
|
I love the BBC
'Innuendo and exaggeration'. That's what News International accused the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of last week. The quote was in reaction to a report, also released last week, in which the Committee was rather critical of News International (the main UK subsidiary of the ridiculously huge News Corp) and one of its papers called News of the World. That's right. The people who own News of the World, Fox News and The Sun are accusing a bunch of people whose idea of a snappy title is 'Press standards, privacy and libel' of innuendo and exaggeration. Laugh? I nearly punched a hole through a little statue of Rupert Murdoch.
The Baptist Times [in which this column first appeared in early March] is a small paper and I am in no way a rich man, so I will not risk being sued by saying everything I truly feel about the Murdoch-owned media behemoth currently intent on ruining journalism (and the world). I will just say look at the front page of News of the World the next time you're at a news stand. Read the words put into the mouths of the pretties on page three of The Sun. Enjoy the measured, subtle, grown-up style and balanced, intellectual content of their coverage of the latest celebrity sex scandal. If you're interested in what their brothers and sisters on US TV are like, watch Fox News presenters and pundits suggest that vaguely socialised healthcare is all about the government killing the elderly, and then maybe you'll get an idea of what I think. I couldn't possibly comment, obviously.
In related news last week we heard that the BBC is tabling plans to lay off large numbers of its workforce and to close many of its operations. Much of this comes in the wake of the Tories promising that they will cut back on spending on the BBC, which in turn comes after Rupert Murdoch's son, James, called the expansion of the Beeb 'chilling' and 'a threat to independent journalism.' His campaign to get the BBC cut down to a smaller, more manageable size has some supporters in Labour, not just the Tories, and some commentators last week saw the proposed cuts across the BBC as a kind of 'pre-emptive strike', defensive pruning in the hope that bigger cuts will then not be justifiable. So while we should all join campaigns to save the variously beloved bits of Aunty Beeb we want to see survive, let's not blame the BBC brass themselves. Let's blame a handful of private-enterprise media moguls who want to see the BBC destroyed. Why? Because it is competition. Brilliant, wonderful competition that does not need to pander to the lowest common denominator to get funding from myopic advertisers.
That is not to say that the BBC does not pander to idiots. Just think of Chris Moyles on Radio1 or such gems as 'Snog, Marry, Avoid?' and 'Hotter Than My Daughter' on BBC TV. But what it does is attempt to provide as broad a range of programming as possible. Radio4 does not need to dumb down, make prank calls or focus on Paris Hilton's sex life, because its function and funding are not at the mercy of the profit motive. And the country is better for it. Niche music and even Pop are served by Radio 1 without being completely dominated by the American artists big record companies already push, and the country's music industry is better for it. Inasmuch as our news-gathering community is held up to better standards than those of fast-food sound-bite tabloidism, it is because the BBC is there, with no political agenda and no need to keep advertisers happy, and the country, if not the world, is better for it.
The BBC is one of a handful of things that make Britain truly great. And when phone-hacking, right-wing, mammon-worshipping, journalism-destroyers try to kill or even wound it, every person of good conscience should fight them, every step of the way.
This column first appeared in The Baptist Times on 5 March.
|
Jonathan Langley, 07/03/2010 |
Add a comment
|
Permalink
|
Justice, Rights and Human Wrongs (Part 1)
I get the impression that Christians are sometimes wary of using the language of human rights. Whereas on the one hand most of us would look at torture cases such as that of Binyam Mohamed and decry the violation of human rights that went on there, on the other we think of the legal decisions made in the name of ‘human rights’ that have gone against Christians and seemingly made it harder for us to live out our faith. I don’t want to comment on the particular way that the Human Rights Act is being implemented, with all of the intricacies which come with that. Rather, I want to suggest that Christians should be comfortable with both the principle and the language of human rights.*
Justice is the issue at the top of God’s agenda. It is clear from Scripture that his justice is not just about dealing with our sin (although that is undoubtedly paramount), but it is also about fair and right treatment by the nations and rulers of the world. Hence in the book of Amos Israel is judged for its lack of social justice – the poor are oppressed and denied justice in the courts, the goods of the poor are confiscated, and trade is dishonest, with inflated prices and crooked weights and measures. And in Jeremiah 21:12, God says clearly
Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds. (ESV)
It is clear from Scripture (not even having turned to the New Testament yet) that God is hugely concerned for social justice. He hates it when the poor are oppressed and the powerful throw their weight around, when money is considered more important than people, and when oppression takes priority over compassion. Why does God care though? Because we have value, dignity and worth.
The intrinsic value of human beings comes from having been made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). The Fall did not erase that intrinsic value and worth – men and women have a special, privileged place in God’s creation. Indeed human dignity was affirmed by Christ becoming incarnate as a human being and dying on a cross for our sake. Rogers and D’Souza approach human rights as follows:
“Ultimately, for each Christian, it means simply respecting and promoting the human dignity of our fellow men and women. It means obeying the greatest commands to love the Lord our God with all our heart and to love our neighbour as ourselves.” (On the Side of Angels, p. 25)
The value of human beings outlined in Scripture and which God’s justice is to some degree motivated by is seemingly mirrored in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
The basis of human rights is found right there in the Bible – humans have value, God hates injustice and we are called to love one another. Let’s not be afraid of affirming what’s good about human rights theory for fear of affirming some of the individualistic and seemingly atheistic judgements that are made in the name of ‘human rights’. Yes it’s true that innate dignity and worth are not the same as rights. Indeed Jesus lay down his rights completely – even though he was God incarnate, he came not to be served but to serve (Mark 10:45). It is also true to say that rights can become very individualistic and self-serving. These are all significant concerns, and it is to these objections and problems with human rights as practiced today to which I will turn next time.
*Much of the information in this post is from a seminar given by Dr David McIlroy, visiting lecturer in law at SOAS and a practicing barrister. His book is called A Biblical View of Law and Justice, and his website is www.theologyoflaw.co.uk
|
Chris Le Marquand, 01/03/2010 |
Add a comment
|
Permalink
|
Brainwashing is sexy
You could almost hear the hallelujahs and quiche-scented whoops of approval, as Christians applauded the carefully crafted statement that was created to achieve just such a reception. Last week the Conservative Party announced that it would be tackling companies who sexualised children in their advertising – and a good thing, too. If you're expecting a cartoon liberal 'I think every nine-year-old needs to learn pole-dancing' response from me, I'm sorry. But I would say this: why stop there? Why limit it to girls? Why not clamp down on all advertising that simultaneously tells women (not just girls) that the most important thing in the world is being sexually attractive and then tells them that they are failing, always falling short in this regard? Why not tackle advertising that tells you, sometimes subtly, sometimes not subtly, that you are a bad mother if you do not wash your family's clothes properly (and by 'properly', I of course mean 'using a specific machine/detergent/softner) or buy certain foods or clean with specific germ-killers? Why not target the adverts that tell a woman that unless she can do the impossible in reversing the effects of something as indifferent and inexorable as the passing of time and the natural biological process of growing older, she will be alone, unhappy, unfulfilled?
Do you want to know why? Because the 'family values' cynically trotted out in statements like this (and, to be fair, in mechanically 'family-oriented' press releases from Labour, too) have everything to do with capturing a section of the vote and little to do with genuine concern for the moral fabric of society. The politicians espousing the proposals may even believe them. But they have not thought very long or hard about them. If they had, they would be honest and say that an advert telling a man that if he does not drive a certain car he is not really a man or that his worth as a human being depends on the clothes he wears and the shoes he owns is far more damaging to our nation's moral fabric than violent computer games or sexy-pre-teen cartoons.
Because the majority of the world's most creative minds are working night and day on advertising that, while it may not sexualise children, tells us that if such products cannot be afforded, we have failed. To be attractive, to be respected, to be happy, to feel comfortable, to be popular and to feel alive, we're told to buy and buy more needless and environmentally unsustainable 'goods'. And politicians focus on the adverts that start ten years too early with their campaign to colonise young women's minds, and they ask us for applause? No. Not until they do the difficult thing, the thing that will offend and horrify their party contributors, whose livelihoods are based on enslaving people to a cycle of debt and overconsumption. Not until they bite the hand that feeds them and attack the majority of advertising as little more than manipulation and brainwashing.
But let's not feel too smug. After all, why do 'family values' get trotted out in Britain and America around election times? Why do politicians kiss babies in a traditional display that, while not actually sexualising children is still frankly creepy? They do it to appeal to us.
Christians have developed a reputation for small-mindedness and stupidity. We supposedly only care about a social ill if it is linked to sexual immorality (don't believe me? How many people-trafficking campaigns have you heard of in your church or Christian media that talk about the numerically huge problem of non-sexual slavery?) or, weirdly, a religious group even more conservative than us. The perception, to be fair, is not entirely just. But it has some basis in fact. And as long as that is the case, we will continue to be played like the dupes we are by politicians and marketers, and our plans for actually making a difference to the society we live in will come to nothing. There is little wrong with addressing sexual immorality. But there are other things to care about, if we care enough to look.
This column appeared in The Baptist Times on 26 February 2010
|
Jonathan Langley, 26/02/2010 |
Add a comment
|
Permalink
|
The Politics of Integrity
The integrity of the upright guides them,
but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them. – Proverbs 11:3 (ESV)
It’s amazing that even thousands of years after it was written the Bible still has some pretty spot on remarks for today’s politicians and public figures. All this talk of expenses which has reared its head again naturally makes us decry the lack of integrity shown by some of our politicians, and recent moral failings on the part of certain sportsmen have provoked a similar response. This lack of integrity has been much derided over the past few months, rightfully so, but what on earth is integrity anyway? The popular conception of someone with integrity would probably be someone who’s got ‘good morals’, someone who’ll give you your change if you send them out for coffee, someone who can be trusted to be in the same room as your girlfriend without making a pass at them. There’s something in that, but as far as the Bible’s concerned there’s a lot more to be said. And as Christians in the political sphere it’s important we get this one right – we don’t have a monopoly on integrity, but it’s impossible to be ambassadors for Jesus, particularly somewhere as difficult as the political world, if our lives aren’t full of it.
We get the word ‘integrity’ from the same place we get the word ‘integer’. To be someone of integrity is to be a whole person – to be the same person when you’re praying on your own to when you’re bantering with your mates; as when you’re chatting to your parents to when you’re speaking to your boss. Obviously I don’t speak to my parents in the same way I speak to my boss, but just as (hopefully) I don’t lie to my parents, I don’t want to be lying to my boss either. Someone with integrity doesn’t have to put on a facade to try and convince people they’re someone they’re not, and doesn’t find themselves in situations where their actions don’t match the levity of their position in the eyes of others. They can be trusted. Integrity in our leaders, whether MPs or captain of the England football team, is, I would suggest, the quality we desire most – when expectations and reality don’t meet we get disillusionment on the scale we’re seeing at the moment. Indeed a ComRes survey for Susa published last week found that 72% of people think personal integrity is more important than party allegiance in their MP. This is such an important topic.
However, there’s a danger here in the quest for integrity. Having ‘integrity’ for integrity’s sake so it can be proclaimed as a mark of how decent a person you are is no integrity at all. The reality is that we are never going to even begin to live lives of ‘wholeness’ without God’s help. In Micah 6:8 we read
What does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God? – Micah 6:8 (ESV)
Justice, mercy and faithfulness as expressed here are the cornerstones of our faith. If we strive for these in our relationship with God and with others, focussing our attention on Jesus, then my hunch is that integrity will follow. To strive for integrity to boost one’s own reputation would seem to suggest that someone isn’t willing to get to the bottom of the disconnect between their private world and their public persona. And in that disconnect lies the problem.
There’s a danger that Christian politicians could be tempted to present themselves as ‘the candidate of integrity’, even using their faith to do so. This will not do. For Christians at least, integrity is the result of a life given over fully to God. It is to be observed, and not proclaimed.
|
Chris Le Marquand, 09/02/2010 |
Add a comment
|
Permalink
|
|
|
