Abu Qatada - When Integrity fails

It seems to me that the furore over the the decision to release the wayward Muslim cleric and the ban by the European Court of Human Rights regarding him being deported to Jordan are all part and parcel of the same problems that led to the untimely death of Baha Musa some seven and a half years ago.

Now I know, having read many of the garment-rending and teeth-gnashing blogs that what I'm going to write might not be popular, but the truth rarely is! In both cases the root of the problem lies in the reality that when wrong things are done - bad things happen, and there is no doubt that Qatada's release and the ban on his deportation are not good. So who, or what, is to blame?

The blame lies firmly at the feet of those who cease to operate with Integrity and where this action occurs there is, as Newton observed, a reaction, and sadly this reaction is often greater in terms of outcome that the initial wrong act. The wrong act of gaining evidence by use of torture and coercion brings about the result that, as I understand it, a guilty and wicked man is afforded the protection that others have had denied because of his preaching and actions. This is a stern lesson for us as we realise that by acting wrongly the wrong are themselves protected and the modern mantra of the 'means justifying the end' is totally wrong.

Acting wrongly never brings about something that is right and this is echoed by the findings (and the realities) of the Baha Musa case as well. People who have been acted against, by acting wrongly themselves, are in danger of damaging the innocent if they lose sight of the need to maintain their integrity and throw discipline to the wind.

As I understand it there are ways and means of extraditing Qatada legally and these need to be looked at and acted upon. For those who call upon our government to 'do what is right' even though it is wrong are calling upon our nation to descend into the same pit as those against whom we contend physically, morally and spiritually. We need our nation, through the actions of our government, to show integrity and have the courage to do what is right even though other would have us merely engage in the act of revenge!

And those who call for our government to ignore the rule of law and deport Qatada are themselves in danger of leading us into a place where we become bedfellows with those whom we despise rather than being a people who obey the rule of law and act lawfully.

Philippians 4:8
Finally, my brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Hard (and perhaps unpopular) words - but words I feel we need to heed as a nation and in our own personal walk. If we act within the law all that we do will bear fruit and honour God. If we act against God we sow the seeds of despair and frustration. Perhaps this is what we get with an increasingly secular society (now that's a contentious thought too! - must be my day to tick people off)?

Pax

Declining integrity?

Or is it honesty that is in decline (or perhaps, more accurately, both)? This is an interesting question as radio news coverage of this report glibly mixed integrity and honesty (much as they do with 'sex' and 'gender') as if they were one and the same. But of course they're not for, to some extent, each influences and begets the other.

A study carried out by the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity (ECSI) found that we are apparently less honest than we used to be at the turn of the century. Societal standards have altered such that extra-marital relations, drink driving, lying and underage sex are now, apparently, much more acceptable.

It will probably come as no shock to find that the tolerance diminishes with age and that the younger the person questioned, the more liberal (in a permissive, not Biblical sense so put those pens down - at least for a moment or two!) they became and with age came less acceptance of these, hitherto perceived breaches.

Regarding infidelity, attitudes had gone down from the 2000 figues of 70% saying it was never justified to 50% now.

Those who considered picking up and keeping money found in the street as not being justified diminished to 20% from the previous figure of 40%.

The only issue where opinion had hardened against it was that of benefit fraud which had risen to 85% from the previous 78%.

The numbers of those who thought lying was wrong also fell and this study raises a few interesting (well they are for me) twists and considerations. One of the prevailing responses has been the question:

"Why are young people are becoming more dishonest?"

Professor Paul Whiteley, the study's author and ECSI's director's take on this was:

"We think it is because their role models are not very good - footballers who cheat on their wives, journalists who hack people's phones. Gradually people are tending to become more dishonest, they are more willing to tell lies, more willing to tolerate adultery. It's slow over time and going on in the background but pretty evidentially there."

Some interesting food for thought indeed.

And more thought there will be, but for now tea drunk and off to do another funeral.

Pax

Ecumenism - A view from the shelter!

Being 'Churches together' (CT) appears to be a rather variable feast in that it brings a plethora (oooh, what a nice word) of benefits, hindrances and neutral happenings.

One of the biggest strengths of being in fellowship with other Christians has to be the fact that this is putting flesh on the 'See how these Christians love one another," thing! The unity that can be developed by having an effective, and real, go at being Church together is worth its weight in banane chips.

The downside is that having a go at ecumenism means that we end up in bed with some theologies and thinking that we might otherwise maintain an otherwise healthy distance from. There are even some groups, if the stories are true, who have opened their doors to groups I regard as decidedly not Christian (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Quakers to name but three).

There are benefits in bringing together the whole spectrum of Christian, from rampant liberal to ultra-orthodox, high-church to happy-clappy, bicyclng, nutters (a quote from a self-professed happy-clappy nutter!). Anabaptists, paedobaptist, pro and anti, informed and confused or unthinking. When there is diversity of thinking (and belief) there is also the potential to learn and understand the what, hows and whys.

The problem is that we tend not to share what makes us different and so before we know it we have a large mass of material that we dare not discuss lest it has an impact upon our unity. If we don't talk about it and carefully avoid referring to anything contentious we will survive, but the question is, what as?

The good thing is that is we work together for the benefit of the whole Church then we don't find ourselves regarding others as merely being in the business of self-interest and sheep-stealing. When we lose the unity we bring in the distrust of each other and lose collegiality for competition and this is where the Church really starts to lose out.

One of the key things of the Churches Together group where I am is that they covenanted together that where something could be done as a corpus then it would. The churches acted to work together and by so doing, they brought about relationships and trust which benefitted all. The problem is that in these financially challenging days we have the situation where within some of the Churches Together groups, and even within multiple benefice entities, clusters, circuits, parishes and the like, some are looking to pull up the ladder and look to their own, rather than the wider, interests of Church.

Where you find yourself today, in the church, fellowship or gathering that you are part of, what is the relationship with others who call themselves Christian. How are you working as a parish, cluster, circuit or whatever? How are you seeking to bless the others in the place you live and how are you blessing those other Christians around you?

We need to be careful lest we find the words of Tertullian (Apologetis ch.26) be made true:

"Vide", inquiunt, "ut invicem se diligant" - ipsi enim invicem oderunt - "et ut pro alteruto mori sint parati"; ipsi enim ad occidendum alterutrum paratiores erunt.

"Look," they say, "how they love one another" (for they themselves hate one another); "and how they are ready to die for each other" (for they themselves are readier to kill each other).

Pax

Being the difference - Clergy & Police

In an interesting discussion today which made me realise that maintaining the difference and 'being the role' is essential for those who wear a dogcollar or carry a warrant card.

In both roles there is an 'ontological' reality whereby we don't merely 'do a job' but become different because of it. In becoming a priest we are changed such that our being is also changed and the difference is essential and real. The same is true for those who maintain the law.

There is, within some at least, a mindset that says a copper is never off duty! Of course not, because the role is ontological (albeit only for the time they are in their force) - they are what they are 7*24*365! The same is true of Priests (without the temporary bit)

Both work for a higher authority and seek to maintain laws which define how we live and what our society is and does. Those laws are usually found to be, or are derived from, Judeo-Christian lass and requirements.

Neither are ever 'off duty', something which makes both potentially dangerous people to have as friends if we tend towards lawbreaking (God's or man's).

Someone recently, speaking of an operational situation where a police officer was deployed with them, made the comment was made that 'they' were always looking at what they did in case they could nick them. Amazingly though, when the need arose, 'they' tagged, cuffed and took into custody the naughty people and when there was a question over what had gone on, it was the copper and the law that showed those who acted to have done so correctly and so offered support and protection. The police were actually present to ensure that others were protected - for this is what law does, it offers protection in that it works at prevention and when this fails deals with the miscreants. It keeps the community safe and ensures that things function as they are required to do.

The priest does exactly the same and by prevention and engagement with those who cross the line, seek to bring about a society that lives to higher moral codes and begets a better community that would otherwise be the case.

Neither police or priest can afford to cross the line or permit others to do this. Neither can 'turn a blind eye' without become guilty themselves (Ezekiel and the watchman knowingly nod). Neither can encourage people to cross the line in an effort to bring about natural law, for even if the miscreant deserves their comeuppance, the retribution takes all outside of the law and renders them equally guilty regardless of whether we are looking at God or society as the source of the law!

For both police and priest the entreaty that we should deal with those who break the law (sin) in a balanced manner, not giving in to excess lest we break the laws ourselves (sin).

Both police and priest engages with society by consent. In one it is society who sets the conditions that the police seek to maintain but in both, generally, the laws are God's and so the duty to maintain them is, for both, a higher calling.

Pray for those who police that they may act justly, maintain and live by the law, bring justice where others seek revenge, restore those who seek to do wrong and act against those who will not be restored - but gently and with integrity so that they teach and keep the laws.

Pray for those who take upon themselves the role of priest for in many ways the duties, role, demands and pressures are the same.

Pax

Ideals are great when you're young

Speaking to someone about what you in life and how you regard study I was drawn back to a conversation with a passionate young ecologist whose dream was to go to university and then get out and change the world. As time progressed and the 'A' Levels  came onto the horizon the passion remained.

Off to university and they studied stuff in the first year that would enable them to live their dream and to become the difference.  Then came a second year and there's talk of the 'milk train' coming to town and opportunities to be taken up by KPMG, Andersen's and other big and important management and financial organisations. By the beginning of the third year every conversation came to harbour in a bay marked £kkk and the potential for earning should they get a first or a 2:1.

Foolishly I asked what had happened to the earlier passion for ecology and green things and received my comeuppance! "The only reason to go to university is to maximise earning potential and expand the opportunities within the marketplace. The better the grades the more chance there is of being given an internship," (where you work your 'nads off only to find that the successful person is a relative of the CEO or some other incestuously related worthy - my addition).

Should we really be teaching our kids that education is all about 'earning potential' and maximizing things? I don't give a monkey's what our children do as long as they are happy doing it and derive some pleasure from making a difference in the world around them as they do it. But I do detest schoolteachers who spout tosh about education and earnings and academics who remain within their shiny white towers gazing up their behindsides whilst promoting education as a means for making money (which of course they do, but that's for another day children).

When I was helping long-term unemployed back into world (Note for 'back to' anywhere or anything people - you need to have been there to be going back - a thought for thoughtful evangelism?) I was telling people how the Institute for manpower Studies would point to five distinct careers between first and last job. We would be given reports that showed how we were going to go where sent, when we were sent, in order to bring home a wage - so the idea hit me; Why not do something you might enjoy?

It worked (Rick are you still a sport's reporter?) because people realised that when you have nothing before you then anything is worth having and if it is what you want, how much better can that be?

If we did education for money and maximising potential then who would rescue people from fires, preach to the lost, heal the sick, stand with the broken and change our ecological thinking?

If you have a dream or an ambition or a hope or a wish and you're unemployed, then what the hell have you got to lose? Go learn that subject, write that book, visit that place or be the person you want to be - after all, if you have little what is there to lose and how much more is there to gain?

If you have a dream, then pursue it - I'm sick and tired of deathbed revelations that the dyee always wanted to be something or other but their Mother wouldn't let them. We have but one life here (and then hebrews tells us we die and then we get judged) so why don't we stop living for the man and live with the Man (God) and find ourselves in Him and us in our realised dreams and ambitions.

God didn't make us to make money - He made us to touch each other, care for ALL of HIS creation and to be happy (within His laws, sorry - not a caveat to behave as you'd like outside of His will).

NIKE - JUST DO IT!

Pax

Loving as Christ loves us

After the Good Friday witness I met people who spoke of a man, mentally ill, needing to be 'managed' or acted against 'properly' or as one put it, "Just locked up!" Another has spoken of acting 'decisively', but what do these words mean?

As they uttered those words I had the feeling that a man, somewhere in time was holding a scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and reading thus:

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor;

He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,

To proclaim liberty to the captives,

And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

To proclaim the year of the LORD’s favour, and the day of vengeance of our God;

To comfort all who mourn; giving them beautiful headdress instead of ashes,

The oil of gladness instead of mourning,

The garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;

that they may be called oaks of righteousness,

The planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified."

If we cannot stand with those who know the Lord and have broken minds;

If we cannot stand with those who know the Lord and have broken lives;

If we cannot weep with those who weep, grieve with those who grieve, love those who are unloveable and yet know the Lord, what hope is there for the lost?

What hope is there for the Church?

Who can be saved?

What reason is there for His rising up today?

Pax

HS2 - Should the Church be involved?

Moving on from the London march today I am prompted to continue on a different vein. Office said (Harriet Monsell) and desk looking clear (it's all on the floor!), fresh tea on desk and a collection of tits, sparrows and dunnocks hanging from the feeders I am drawn to a letter which tells me that, "Churches and Christians have no place in protesting."

The focus of the protest to which the letter relates is that of 'HS2' (High Speed Two), a rail service which will provide a second high speed link from London to Scotland and one which threatens to cuts communities and houses in two.

* Leaders of industry in the region are saying that the cutting down of the journey to London by forty minutes will bring investment and business to the area.

* Ecologists and nature lovers tell us that the trains increase the carbon economy figures rather than reduce it as the trains consume three times the power of the slower existing stock.

* People can work in London and will be effectively working on the trains whilst they travel and so this is a win-win (unless you count the cost of those commuting into London leaving local workforces).

* Air travel from London to Scotland will be cut, reducing the carbon economy.

These are but a few of the issues and the question is, should the churches be getting involved in this issue. As chairman of the local churches together group I have asked this and the jury is out with many of the leaders. "we shouldn't be getting into stuff like this, it's not our business!" said one minister.

well I think they are wrong, for we are called to serve and support the communities in which we find ourselves, and this is a need which needs to be addressed.

Where I am I am finding ministers who have the attitude that we shouldn't engage in areas where there is difference of opinion and should avoid confrontational issues such as Palestine, Abortion, Homosexuality and the like. The problem with this is that if the minister's are so unsure of what they believe (or too cowardly to dialogue) how can we expect those to whom we minister to have any integrity, rational thought processes and ability to dialogue and debate.

1 Peter 3 tells us that we should be able to answer any who ask, telling them of the hope we have in Jesus.

Now if the ministers cannot do this, then what hope is there for the members?

Anyone fancy coming to a public meeting - details soon?

I love this blog, enables me to dialogue with the voices inside my head, the people outside it and the God who is everywhere.

Pax