Psychopaths?

This makes me angry.

Why?

Because it demonises people, implying that these "monsters" are less than human, and explicitly stating that they are irredeemable.

Because it fails to acknowledge that we all behave in these ways at times, and at times we all take pleasure in behaving in these ways too.

Because it draws another line between "us the normal people" and "them the depraved lot with whom I have nothing in common."

Because it creates yet another reason to live in fear in an already terrorised world.

Because it pins a diagnosis on a person, rather than acknowledging that families, institutions, local communities, and the wider society play a critical role in shaping that who that person is and who they will become.

It seems to me that "psychopath" is a much overused word these days, and "character" much underused.

"Lord, have mercy on us all when we act in unethical, immoral, and self-centred ways. Help us to encourage one another towards greater Christlikeness in our families, our churches, our workplaces, and our wider communities. Give us eyes to see your image in those around us, no matter how far from you they seem."

Faith of asylum seekers

Should the faith of asylum seekers be relevant in considering their application for refugee status? I think not - people who are in danger of persecution in their home country should be granted asylum regardless of their faith. But what to do if they are in danger of persecution because of their faith? or would be in danger of persecution if they converted to different faith?

It seems that Australia is grappling with this question at the moment. Australia's policy on asylum seekers is (in many cases) brutally inhumane - some people have been detained for over three years following their unsuccessful applications for refugee status. I would not be surprised to see them grabbing at anything that increases their chances of release. But I am wary of conversion to Christianity (or any faith) being used as a means to an end - especially a political end - rather than being for its own sake. Of course, Christianity has political implications, including implications about how asylum seekers are treated. It is indeed a tangled, complex web...

in relation to Scripture

Scripture is described in many ways by Christians, but one of the common epithets is "the living word of God." I have sometimes wondered about the word "living" here. In what sense is Scripture alive? How is it more alive than other words on other pages?

It seems that people are most fully alive when we are "in relation" to others, when we are in an "I-Thou" relationship; when we look for the image of God in another person. I have found this idea useful in conceptualizing (however woefully inadequately) the Trinity: Each Person of the Trinity is alive, has being, in relation to the other Persons and in the mutual giving to the others.

I wonder if this idea might be fruitfully applied to Scripture? Perhaps Scripture is the living word of God only when it is read and heard "in relation" to us. Perhaps Scripture is not "true" in some absolute, abstract, distant sense, but is only true if we listen for the Word of God as we read it, when we struggle to read, believe, and live out its meaning as a community of God's people.

Although this idea has been lurking in my mind for a while, it was recently rekindled by hearing Pete Rollins discuss (among many many other things!) the idea of truth as a soteriological event rather than an empirical fact. A thought-provoking notion - I am still trying to come to terms with what this might mean in practice.

Blasphemy and freedom of speech

Whoops, almost a month since my last post! I am still here, just been busy with research.

Today's edition of BBC Radio 4's "The Long View" discussed blasphemy and freedom of speech. I only caught part of it and wasn't concentrating all that well, but it sounded interesting. I will be listening again here when I get some time. After the "Jerry Springer - The Opera" debacle, and the violent protests from the Sikh community about a play in Birmingham, it's worth knowing that the problem is not new, and useful to think about how this issue has been discussed in the past.

I must say that I thought that less than helpful comments were made by all sides. The Evangelical Alliance spokesperson Don Horrocksseemed to imply at one point that Christians (especially in the West) are better than Sikhs or Muslims at detecting when apparently blasphemous art is in fact intended to be satirical - a rather dubious assumption, to say the least. On the other hand, the historian Justin Champion said "...it's built into the nature of religion to believe that your faith is right, and by default all others are wrong" - which I think is simply not true. What if you think of faith in terms of narrative: "My faith tells the story of God, the world, and my life in a way that makes the most sense to me, a way that resonates deeper than "right or wrong", a way that shapes who I am and how I behave. I'm not so sure about other stories, but I'm certainly not willing to make "right or wrong" judgments about them".

Despite my doubts, however, I think "The long view" is probably second only to "In our time" as my favourite BBC Radio 4 show. I've wondered if presenting one of these shows would be my ideal job...