Modern magnificat

I hardly ever attempt to write poetry - as will become obvious. However on Sunday, which was still within the Christmas season, I was provoked to do so. Over the past year one of my joys, of which there have been a number, has been regular engagement with a church which lives out the good news to the marginalised in a way that I find resonates with my understanding of Christ, or, if you prefer, real love. So here it is.

Child of our time, God of eternity,
pity our dreadful extremity
terrors of plague, horrors of war
refugees drown, glaciers melt.
nurses and carers drop
peacemakers killed
mindless mobs follow demagogues
down self-interest’s hell hill

Child of single girl, God of humanity,
here in our world, knowing infirmity,
looks with compassion
where we dare not look.
he does not turn away
from society’s prey
holds the hand of men dying of Aids
hugs the child who daren’t say she’s gay

Child of our flesh, God of infinity,
here in our pain, knowing fragility,
walks through the brambles
where we dare not go.
he does not avoid
the depths of our fears
nightly he sits in the cell on death row
watches with the widow in tears

Child of seeking, God of identity,
at home in the halls of complexity,
and muddy streets of poverty
yet homeless himself
careless of debate
he embraces all
colours and children, beggars or rich,
‘love, love,’ is his call.

Child of the world, God of diversity,
silenced not by all our perversity
speaks through autistic girls,
old men in suits and in robes.
Christ, give us eyes to see
your compassion to be
in our streets where you are, aching to bless
with our presence his beloved.

11th January 2021  

Sculpture Safe in His Hand by Sarah Lomas

 

Taking away and giving - we're not the only ones with COVID-19

After the heady and headline-grabbing political news of last week, I've noticed two hopeful pieces of news this week, which seem to have slipped by most media unremarked. One came in the shape of a speech on Tuesday; and the other was a comment on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning. 

Andrew Mitchell MP

The first was a speech made by Andrew Mitchell MP for Sutton Coldfield (formerly International Development Secretary) in the House of Commons, introducing a private member's bill entitled "Doctors and Nurses (Developing Countries) Bill". The gist of his speech is "The case we make to Parliament and the Government today is as follows: it is immoral and selfish for Britain, with its wealth and infrastructure, to poach doctors from the developing world. However, by taking the action I have suggested, we can turn that into a win-win for us and for developing countries." When we persuade a doctor from the developing world to come here, we do so in the knowledge that our gain will inevitably be their country’s loss. In this country, we have 215 doctors, nurses, health workers and midwives from Sierra Leone; from Nigeria, 4,099; from Pakistan, 3,394; from Ghana, 1,118; and from India, just short of 20,000. He pointed out the disproportion of the ratios of doctors per head of population here compared to that in countries we import from, and "how much we rely on those doctors and nurses and other healthcare workers who bring their talents and skills to this country to support our NHS from overseas. We respect them and we are hugely grateful to them. Indeed, if I may use a second world war analogy, much beloved by some of my hon. Friends, the heroes of this war against covid are not, as in the battle of Britain, the men and women of the Royal Air Force but, all too often, workers from overseas working in our hospitals, giving their all in our care homes, putting themselves in harm’s way, and often living on the minimum wage." 

So he proposed, "Why not do the following? For every doctor or nurse we poach from a developing nation, we should ensure that that developing country—on losing their trained professional to our advantage—receives from the existing British development budget sufficient resources to train up and replace them, two for one? When we are lucky enough to secure such professionals from the developing world, we should replace them twice over, and expand their public health services accordingly." 

What a brilliantly simple idea! Undoubtedly we owe a debt of gratitude to the nations from whom we poach professionals to prop up our National Health Service. Undoubtedly it is immoral to rob the poor to enrich the wealthy. Remember David and Bathsheba - and Nathan's parable? We're in the same territory.

Prof Andrew Pollard

The other news came in an interview with Professor Andrew Pollard from the Oxford Vaccine Group. Nick Robinson was asking him about the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. There's good news on that front as well as last week's from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna who seem to be in an efficacy arms race. The good news was that the Oxford vaccine seems to lose none of its effectiveness with us oldies; and moreover it's the vaccine in which the UK government has most heavily invested, having ordered 100 million doses. (Quite why the government wants a stockpile of 340 million doses, which it has ordered in total, even at two per person, with a population of 68 million beats me - maybe they intend to give the surplus away...) However the good news was that the Oxford vaccine unlike the BioNTech and Moderna equivalents does not require to be stored at temperatures more suited to the Arctic than the Tropics. "Right from the beginning our goal has been to develop a vaccine that could be distributed everywhere, and that's not a question just for the UK where of course we've got the infrastructure that can be put in place to manage whatever the storage requirements are, but we're looking globally. We really want to get to every corner of the world if indeed the vaccine is shown to work." As he implied later, if the virus persists in some parts of the world, the possibility of reinfection will always be there. 

How good it was to hear someone else looking beyond our shores and realising as Prince Charles remembered in Berlin on Sunday that no man and no country is really an island entire unto itself. Obversely how chilling to hear suggestions that the £16.5 billion defence budget increase might be at the expense of the overseas aid budget. I gather that the Treasury is trying to claw back some of the billions that have been splashed out on covid-related contracts from our overseas aid commitment of 0.7%. Tragic. 

A friend of mine commenting on Andrew Mitchell's proposal wrote, "This is what we ought to be doing and, if it happens, would make Britain truly great, and me proud to be British!" I agree.

Scaredy dogs - or dangerous dogs of war?

Have you noticed that dogs usually bark, growl and bare their teeth when they are frightened? That, I imagine, is why so many small canines are so yappy and aggressive. They hope that by getting in the first yap or nip they'll scare off what they see a big threatening hulk of a beast. It's apparently what tourists are recommended to do when confronted with a tiger defending her young - not the nipping, just making a loud noise. It's certainly what we were told to do in the Mount Kenya forest if we encountered elephants or, worse, buffaloes. So there was the occasional clashing of pangas on our way up. 

Clipartmag.com

I wonder if this is the reason for the continual shouting about China and Russia indulged in by our government and our large friend across the pond. We're like a Jack Russell terrier and a stout Rottweiler seeing an Afghan hound and a Great Dane in the park. If we had any self-confidence, we'd not bother to see sinister intent whenever they looked at us. Instead we snarl that one looks messy and the other leaves larger deposits than other dogs.

Or maybe we're like street gangs. I gather that often the motive for carrying knives is fear. If I'm threatened, I'll get in first with my weapon, and so we brandish our verbal aggression to forestall a perceived threat. However, what if the threat is imagined but not real? Our politicians and the media whom they feed are busy creating a narrative of threat, which may or may not be real. Certainly China is a major player now in terms of global economic power, and by our standards is among the most repressive states in the world. Russia, geographically huge, was once our ally in fighting the greatest scourge of the last century, but is now a declining economic force.

I don't pretend to know the facts and fiction of all the anti-Russia stories we're fed. (Nor the ones about China, or Iran.) There are a lot of puzzling elements in accounts which go apparently unquestioned. For example, why in a time of supposed international transparency and cooperation should a state bother to hack vaccine research, especially when it had made a deal with Astra Zeneca for the leading contender in the field? Or why should it send two incompetent spies on a plane together in an attempt to bump off another one in a CCTV-abundant country? 

Clearly the government would prefer us not to know as, according to the ISC report, it didn't ask the security services to investigate any potential interference with elections or referendums in the UK, thus leaving it able to say with a straight face, "See, the report found no evidence of Russian interference." Of course, if you don't look for something, you won't find it. (Sadly now it appears that even the Opposition has entered the anti-Russia game questioning the right of RT to broadcast here.)

If a government is in trouble, the traditional way out was to find a war to fight and call the country to unite against a common foe, whether Argentina or Iraq. Failing that, the current policy is to wage a war of words, to create a phoney enemy and maintain a barrage of propaganda, in cooperation with the media - which on the whole your country will believe. The trouble with this policy is that it does not tend towards peace. It tends to real war, economic or physical. And the people who suffer in war are the ordinary citizens. You have only to look at the effects of the United States' sanctions on countries such as Russia or Iran. Personally I don't wish to be part of a nation of self-righteous warmongerers. it may make us feel great, but it doesn't hide the fact that we have feet of fear. 

However, it's reasonable to ask, in what way can our government possibly be "in trouble" with its landslide majority in Parliament? Primarily because it is presiding over a country both divided and economically threatened by Brexit. The more the headlines are dominated by pandemic stories, or failing that Russia and China stories, the less notice journalists will take of the surrender of our EU-won protections (for example of food standards and the environment) and the loss of Parliamentary oversight of our national interest (for example of the NHS). Ironically even the Dominic Cummings' story would have served as a welcome distraction, because there was no way that he would have had to resign. The first "enemy" that presented itself was the Covid-19 pandemic, which our Prime Minister faced with Churchillian bravado. Sadly, although the country was remarkably united in defensive measures, the victory hasn't been won, and if and when it is, it will prove to have been terribly Pyrrhic. And so instead we have let slip the dogs of hostility on our ever useful bogeymen with a succession of stories fed to the horse-leech media.

Or maybe the "trouble" is merely a matter of Mr Johnson's and Mr Trump's approval ratings, which are disturbingly (for them) low.

In the words of the nineteenth-century poem:
"O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing." Or, in other words, "Shut up, you warmongers - and give peace a chance!"

In defence of u-turns

I find myself in the unfamiliar situation of saying something nice about a Tory government. But I must say that among all their policy errors there have been a few occasions when I have found myself applauding them. Let me make it clear I dislike the almost universal refusal to give a direct answer to a straightforward question, the parrot-like repetition of a No-10 taught phrase such as "we're being led by the science" or "the journey was within the legal guidelines", and constant use of statistics which as the admirable More or Less (on Radio 4) regularly demonstrates are anything from inaccurate to misleading.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a generally accepted view that u-turns are a sign of weakness in a government - and to be pilloried. On the contrary, it seems to me refusing to admit you were wrong and changing direction can be pig-headed folly. My wife has to tolerate my navigation when we drive anywhere. Not infrequently I direct her the wrong way. Were we to persist we'd either take an awfully long route or completely fail to reach our destination. Sometimes u-turns are the best policy.

Of course taking the wrong road in the first place was unwise. Yet it takes humility and courage, especially if you're a political leader under public scrutiny, to admit that you were mistaken. And I don't think I've ever heard a government representative issuing an unqualified apology. Matt Hancock refused to apologise on Thursday morning for accusing premiership footballers such as Marcus Rashford for failing to do their bit in the pandemic. He had the gall to attribute some of that young man's achievement to his original comments, and seemed to confuse him with the star of the Harry Potter films. Even Boris Johnson spoiled his u-turn in reponse to Marcus Rashford's impassioned plea for the continuation of lunch vouchers for free-school-meal children by declaring at the Tuesday briefing that he'd 'only become aware' of Marcus Rashford's campaign that day. Presumably he doesn't watch even the BBC News, as it was a major item the day before. But credit where credit's due. Someone in government made the decision to reverse the previous mean policy of stopping it when "term time" finished. Presumably they were moved more by political than compassionate considerations - consider the adverse publicity in the media of starving children on the streets. But at least the right thing was done in the end.

Then there was the schools' affair. At first Mr Williamson thought it would be a good idea to send lots of children back to school. When headteachers pointed out that you can't conjure extra space out of nowhere and parents refused to send their children into potential, perhaps imagined, risk, he scratched his head and changed his mind. So the media-maligned teachers, having worked their socks off to provide distance learning to the pupils, many of them at the same time as providing the children of key workers in-school teaching, now face the job of teaching Reception, Years 1 and 6. Reluctantly it seems the minister has listened to the professionals, and suddenly policy changed. And vague - definitely vague - plans for September - definitely September - have been announced. Well, so far, so good. As instructed, we watch this space.

The "reforms" of the amateur Ms Truss within her justice brief have largely been rolled back to the relief of lawyers and the probation service, including the abandonment of her privatisation of probation.

Of course the biggest change of direction was announced by the young Chancellor of the Exchequer when he became, by force of circumstances, an adherent of corbynomics in a manner trashed months earlier by his boss. However in hindsight we'll probably agree that his decisive action will have saved the economy from total catastrophe. Taking advantage of currently rock-bottom interest rates, he borrowed billions of pounds in order to pay for locked-down workers on furlough. And so in company with other countries we find our economy with a debt larger than the GDP. Of all government ministers Rishi Sunak is the most impressive, not least as a communicator.

The Track and Trace app abandonment illustrates vividly the Prime Minister's pig-headed determination to "beat the world". The Government seems intent on making its own mistakes rather than learning from other countries' experience: late lock-down, inadequate stocks of PPE, abandoned testing, trying to create our own app. Of course it would be best not to go in the wrong direction in the first place, but turning round is better than pursuing that road. And we must acknowledge that no government would get everything tight.

Iconoclasm and #Black Lives Matter

"They just don't think about it!" It was spoken dismissively. The group of churches met remotely twice a week by zoom.

A nice reflective service (in which the prayers mentioned justice and peace) was followed by "break out groups" where people were put in randomised groups of 5 or 6 other screens. In one group there was a general consensus among the participants that the recent demonstrations had been irresponsible, criminal and dangerous. "We'll see when the infection rate goes up." There was no mention of George Floyd whose funeral was going on nor of Black Lives Mattering. In fact they'd not been mentioned at all in any service. 

Edward Colston (Bristol News)

Slave ship (Wikipedia)

Meanwhile an inarticulate old man was thinking to himself: "Of course they'd thought about it. They've been thinking about it for years, decades and centuries. And of course they knew the risks they were running. Look at the masks, the distancing, the overwhelming self-restraint." He was thinking, "As a Bristolian from age 2 and a bit, who in my schooling up till university never heard a word about how Edward Colston made his money, I was glad when I heard that his statue had been toppled (like Saddam Husain), and dumped in the harbour. The rope round the neck reminiscent of the many slaves hung for wanting freedom; the dumping in the river echoing the thousands of African slaves dumped overboard in the Atlantic. It's high time the public honouring of slavery was removed. I am ashamed of my ignorance - for example I did not realise the significance of Whiteladies Road leading to Blackboy Hill *. I profoundly admire Bristol's elected mayor, Marvin Rees, who regarded the statue as a personal affront, but also said, 'My concern though is that racism is tackled not just by pulling down statues in symbolic moments – it’s stitched into the system. It’s the systematic exclusion of people from opportunity and power.' If it deserves to be replaced anywhere, it's in a museum exhibition about slavery." (I gather that's where it's going. Good decision.)

In the event all he said was, "I disagree. I think the cause of the demonstrations is hugely important. Black lives matter." There was momentary silence. 

Recently the vicar alluded to them in his weekly letter: 

"There have been many demonstrations about the inequality and mistreatment of people different from us. Psalm 58 helps express outrage at injustice. It might be a bit too brutal and vicious for you, but it does claim hope in God to achieve justice. If you have been or are a victim of unfair treatment, then Psalm 59 may express what you want to say."

Photo: London Evening Standard

Personally, I am happy that the statues of men who made their money from slavery should be removed. I would like it carried out after examination of the history and debate in democratic forums. I do understand the danger of hot-headed activists attacking monuments only to be confronted by white racists "defending" Britain and polarising public opinion - which would lead to the rise of extreme nationalism in our political life. It could easily germinate and flourish in the comfortable white shires of rural England. So I hope for a thorough and unflinching examination of our colonial past - and its being taught in our schools from the moment they're allowed to return. The context of 21st-century Britain is very different from the mid 20th when I was at school, and even more so from Victorian Britain when many statues were erected. The National Curriculum Stage 3 includes the example of "Britain’s transatlantic slave trade: its effects and its eventual abolition" as one option, which might explain why the younger generation was so represented in demonstrations. The generations who most need education about slavery and colonialism are mine (baby boomers) and those the succeeding one or two. 

I agree with the view that we are at a potential turning-point in the history of racial equality. The horrific killing of George Floyd with onlookers unwilling or unable to save him coincides with the world having the time to reflect and understand. My wife and I have been watching the TV adaptation of Andrea Levy's The Long Song, set in the cane fields of Jamaica. We need more of such uncomfortable programmes. I hope the debates continue.

Finally a single history test for you: What do you understand by the Middle Passage?

Barbara Holmes, an American theologian, may help:

"It was a community of sorts, yet each person lay in their own chrysalis of human waste and anxiety. More often than not, these Africans were strangers to each other by virtue of language, culture, and tribe. Although the names of their deities differed, they shared a common belief in the seen and unseen. The journey was a rite of passage of sorts that stripped captives of their personal control over the situation and forced them to turn to the spirit realm for relief and guidance. . . ."

*As is clear from the comments below, I hadn't realised the significance of the road names, which is less objectionable than I implied. (13th June) Apologies.

Coronavirus complacency

I am, regrettably, as readers of this blog will have realised, increasingly becoming that unattractive creature, a grumpy old man. Perhaps it's exacerbated by the frustration of lockdown added to disability. My usual sunny disposition seems to hide beneath the clouds. But I hope you'll allow me another moan.

One recent Sunday night as I brushed my teeth I heard this unpalatable interchange between Stephen Nolan and his guest on his Radio 5 Live show. It went something like this. Esther Rantzen, who was his guest, she of Childline and Silverline and That's Life had been arguing, I gather, that people over 70 whatever their state of health or fitness should confine themselves to their homes even when others were being allowed out as the epidemic eased off. She advanced good reasons for her thesis, and of course callers agreed and disagreed. Then Stephen Nolan asked:

"SN How tough are you finding it all?

"ER  Do you want the truth...? Promise you won’t tell anyone...? 

Like Michael Palin this morning, Michael Palin said. Getting up and finding you haven’t got an alarm clock waking you at 7, suddenly finding you haven’t got to get up and do this and that and the other, suddenly being able to reflect a little bit, about the crucial things in life, the most precious things in life, having an opportunity just to write things down for your grandchildren, it’s such an extraordinary opportunity. 

The Queen talked about having time to reflect, and I’m hoping we come out of this with some idea about what life is really for and about, who the people are in our lives, about what the world is for. (You know when someone quotes Michael Palin and the Queen it's a weak idea that needs propping up.)

"SN  I’ve spoken to you a number of times over the years… Here’s the truth about me. I agree with you. I’m working 7 days a week around the clock for the last 20 odd years. You know what this business is like….

I’ve seen more of my house in the last 5 or 6 weeks than in 5 or 6 years. And do you know what? I kinda enjoy it. I enjoy the simplicity of not rushing out to work, and looking up and seeing the colour of the sky, and having a bit of time for me and a bit of time to think. Now I wouldn’t want it to go on for ever, but actually it’s not that bad - for me.

"ER. And we’ve watched a beautiful spring, the sunniest April since records began. I know it’s a disaster because it’s global warming and all that, but it’s been so beautiful…. I think it’s the workaholics like you are and I used to be this is a very useful splash of cold water to make us recognise that actually we were cutting out of our lives the things that make life worth living."

Well, it was a very lovely piece of homespun philosophy - with which I partly agreed - but I'm afraid it annoyed me. It was so coy and complacent. These very well-fed broadcasters who without doubt have very nice houses (probably more than one), investments and savings, and who are continuing to earn and can look forward to triple-locked pensions as well as occupational schemes, can afford to enjoy "the extraordinary opportunity" of lockdown. But there are many more who can't. There are millions more who are struggling and will be much worse off after this whole thing is "part of history".

March saw a rise in rainforest deforestation in the Amazon of 30% in March compared to last year, while the rest of the world was distracted with COVID-19. Also contributing to the problem of climate change, large areas of blanket bog in Northern Ireland were set on fire last week. As Ms Rantzen, put it, lightly, "it’s global warming and all that". The virus will be nothing compared to the effects of global warming. That would the real "disaster".

Photo: BBC TV

And the ones who will suffer from it are not the generation of the post-war baby boomers or the preceding generation. It's the very ones who are bearing the brunt of the present enforced restrictions, and will for decades to come be paying for the necessary but seemingly unending stream of £ billions of government expenditure in the face of the virus. I can understand why the government toyed with the idea of "herd immunity" which would have at least culled many of us pensioners and perhaps shortened the pandemic's grip here. (However I'm glad they changed their tune since it seems a particularly unpleasant way to die.)  

To give him his due, before the news Stephen Nolan did give a nod to the younger generation who are hit hardest: the single parents' restricted to their urban flats, workers in the gig economy, the millions whose work had suddenly gone, those hoping to buy their first home. They can't afford to admire the spring-time; they have to work all hours merely to survive. They can't rely on foodbanks and charity for ever. Their lives will never be the same. Their personal economies will not recover. We have personal security but we have very probably impoverished the next generation and their children. The least we can do for them is to act as decisively as we have been scared by COVID-19 into doing in the face of climate change - "led by the science". We may yet be able to save them at least from climate catastrophe.

The Church opens its mouth - a crack

I know I was not alone when I expressed disquiet about the shutting up of churches (see The silencing of the Church).

So I was pleased to see a modification, a confusion (not so pleasing) and a clarification following the bishops' and archbishops' zoom meeting on Tuesday. Here's the guts of the statement.

"While church buildings remain closed for public worship, in line with Government advice, the Bishops agreed in principle to a phased approach to lifting restrictions, in time and in parallel with the Government’s approach, with three broad stages as infection levels improve:

1. An initial immediate phase allowing very limited access to church buildings for activities such as streaming of services or private prayer by clergy in their own parishes, so long as the necessary hygiene and social distancing precautions are taken
2. Subsequently access for some rites and ceremonies when allowed by law, observing appropriate physical distancing and hygiene precautions
3. Worship services with limited congregations meeting, when Government restrictions are eased to allow this

The Bishops agreed that the decision on the timing of when to implement the revised advice on ministers or worship leaders praying and streaming from their church buildings should be made by individual Diocesan Bishops, depending on their local situation.

The Bishops were clear once again that this is guidance – not an instruction or law – and that it will be constantly reviewed depending on the national situation."

The clarification was contained in the sentence: "The Bishops were clear once again that this is guidance – not an instruction or law – and that it will be constantly reviewed depending on the national situation." (My emphasis) In the initial statement, you may recall, there were three 'musts' and one 'should'. "Our church buildings must now be closed...." To my mind that sounded very much like an instruction. And clearly it did to the vast majority of clergy. Bishops with their elevated sense of responsibility can sound a paternalistic, if not authoritarian, tone, such as: "I am able to issue some new permissive guidance", followed by very detailed instructions. Admittedly it is difficult to give guidance without sounding prescriptive, and perhaps some clergy are not to be trusted. Perhaps an expression like "I would recommend the following as best practice" would be preferable.

The modification was "allowing" clergy access to their church buildings in their parishes for clergy subject to hygiene and social distancing precautions. This as I pointed out after 26th March was in fact permitted by law already - as indeed are funerals. Which is the confusing element of the statement. As I cited before:
"A retired judge has pointed out to me that the complete sealing of churches is not the law, simply ecclesiastical guidance. The relevant piece of legislation is this: 
Statutory Instruments
2020 No. 350
Public Health, England
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020
Made
at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Laid before Parliament
at 2.30 p.m. on 26th March 2020
Coming into force
at 1.00 p.m. on 26th March 2020

Further restrictions and closures during the emergency period
5.
(6) A place of worship may be used—
(a)for funerals,
(b)to broadcast an act of worship, whether over the internet or as part of a radio or television broadcast, or
(c)to provide essential voluntary services or urgent public support services (including the provision of food banks or other support for the homeless or vulnerable people, blood donation sessions or support in an emergency)."
 
I suspect the confusion won't be cleared up for us. Funerals in church are permitted by law (as they are in crematoria), but parishes are "guided" but not "instructed" not to allow them. Which seems to me a considerable pity. Isn't it the least we can do for grieving relatives? Isn't that what it means to be pastors? But still "a first small step" in the episcopal phrase. Be grateful for small mercies, my sainted mother would have told me.