|
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.
|
|
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
|
ETHICALLY SOURCED FRUIT
The fifteenth chapter of John’s gospel has always had extreme significance for me personally. I will never forget reading it and noticing what I had never noticed before – this is what I wrote about the experience back in 2006 –
“John 15:1-2 (ANIV)
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. [2] He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.
So he cuts off the dead, dry branches that aren’t bearing any fruit. In my desire for efficiency I’m well up for that. If some of the things I spend my time on are fruitless then I want rid of them too. Bring it on! But I practically spat out my “fruit ‘n’ fibre” as I, perhaps for the first time, grabbed the implication of the next bit. “every branch that does bear fruit he prunes” ! Other translations have phrases like “he cuts back”, or “he purgeth it”, or “he cleanseth it”. Hang on - I wasn’t so sure I liked the sound of that. The stuff that is actually being fruitful needs to be cut back? The stuff that’s going well? That sounds a bit painful! I just knew God was speaking to me. At that stage I wasn’t sure re the specifics (and the full picture is still emerging), but I knew that I had to go through a process where God would prune back many of the things I am involved with to enable the fruit to be of better quality.
As you’ve probably gathered over the years, there are quite a few things that I’ve turned my hand to. God has allowed me so many varied experiences and the privilege of interacting with so many different people in all walks of life. He has blessed many of these things with genuine fruitfulness, so it feels like the 10 or 12 tennis balls that I’m juggling are all getting bigger and bigger. This feels great, but inevitably a point is coming and has perhaps arrived when I need to drop some of the balls to be able to keep juggling perhaps 3 large basketballs. (pardon the dodgy analogy!)
Someone who prayed for me explained what they had seen recently on a trip to a vineyard in the South of France. They spoke of how the experts in the vineyard knew just which branches to remove from the vines when they were harvesting for cheap supermarket wine - £3 a bottle type stuff. They spoke of how it was really important to remove these to let the top quality grapes get as much nourishment as possible to produce best quality, long-lasting fruit. It feels as if I could easily deliver mass-produced, crowd-pleasing cheap stuff that would look good now, or I could allow some pruning to happen and aim for some vintage wine that may outlast me into future generations. Do you get what I’m saying? I think God does this with most of us at some point in our lives. Please hold me to it and please pray for wisdom and open ears in the process.”
So I feel as if I’ve been through that process, as I sit here in 2010. I’m not living in Luton, not doing so much music, and so much space has been created in my life. London has brought incredible learning and incredible opportunity, particularly in the political field. I’m not sure I’ve always used the space that God created for me well, but I’ve definitely been pruned!
Then I went to visit a wonderful church this Sunday morning, full of randomness and life. The speaker was speaking on John 15, and the combination of her words and God’s gentle poking of my head led to some potent truths being planted in me.
1 – the branch doesn’t produce fruit for its own benefit – it produces fruit for the benefit of others.
There are obvious implications for us. How much time do I spending praying that I will be fruitful? I often don’t stop to notice that as a branch I am called to bear fruit for the sake of those who will pick and eat it, not for me. Is that really my orientation?
2 – you can’t produce grapes from a blackberry bush – you can only produce grapes from a vine.
The bottom line is if it’s not on a vine, it’s not a grape. I can produce fruit that appears fresh and tasty, but hasn’t come from a place that is truly rooted in him. If fruit hasn’t come from my “abiding in Him”, then it’s not God-fruit. I think I’ve become quite good at producing the counterfeit, to the extent that I can fool most of the people, most of the time. I’ve been learning recently about “abiding”. Not from a book, but from being married. I feel as if I now know much more about the disciplines that are required for true “abiding”. The concept of sharing space and time with someone at times without immediate practical purpose is utterly counter-cultural. It perhaps explains why so many of us find it difficult to “Be still and know that I am God”. However I am now left in no doubt that my laziness in this regard has implications not only for me, but for all those around me, who will find only fake fruit, or old dry raisins when they come looking to eat. So many of us are now involved in different forms of practical service, and therefore need to hear this truth loud and clear.
3 – pruning may not be primarily for my benefit – only the gardener can see the big picture of the garden.
He is the only one who can see how my growth could impinge on someone elses – stealing their sunlight or nutrients. Sometimes our pruning may be to provide space for someone else to grow further, or to change the direction of our growth, so that we end up growing in the direction that makes the whole picture work, not just our little corner of the garden.
In summary, my understanding of John 15 was exploded outwards. I was forced to face my self-centred reading of the passage, and began to wonder - how many other chunks of scripture do we filter through our individualised, consumerist mindsets? As people living in the year 2010 it is almost inevitable that we will have to fight this subliminal programming. The original readers would have had fewer struggles in this regard.
These 3 thoughts combine with my original take on the passage to create a powerful challenge to those of us involved in politics. Perhaps take some time now to examine your own activity (or hyperactivity) in light of these thoughts. So many of us are running solo races when we are called to be running alongside each other, continually reminding our fellow runners why we are running. I don’t want to meet any more exhausted, stressed-out activists whose good fruit is drying up because they have lost connection with their roots. In so many ways, within CSM, it really is time we got back to our roots, if we want to be fruitful.
I pray that you will have a day that is fruitful. I pray your day is literally full of fruit, sourced from your deep roots in Him, and available for picking by anyone who is hungry and in need.
|
Andy Flannagan, CSM Director, 02/02/2010 |
Add a comment
|
Permalink
|
|
|
