JUNKIE.

A policy I've adopted since I became a prison chaplain is that I don't allow prisoners to call a person who is addicted to drugs a "junkie".

In the Chaplaincy area of the jail, I have always told them, different rules apply.  Prisoners can swear  and curse to their hearts' content in my presence and I don't tell them off, even though I don't like it personally.

But, I tell them, when a person crosses the threshold of the Chaplaincy facility, they leave the "them and us" culture of the prison behind and enter as a human being.  I don't care, I say, if the person who comes in is a prisoner or an officer, or even if he's the governor, he is first and foremost a human being, and someone whom God loves.

For this reason, I have outlawed the word "junkie" from my presence.  It seems to me that if we label someone in this way (and the common adjective accompanying that label is "useless" - a "useless junkie") then this may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's well known that if we label people with negative terms then their own sense of identity will be reinforced as being that negative thing, without much hope of improvement.  That's why parents and teachers are told to refrain from saying "you are bad" and instead say "that was a bad thing to do", as well as to lavish praise and encouragement when the child is trying hard/ doing well.

I'm pretty sure I still think this, but I was made to re-think it recently.  A prisoner I challenged over his use of the word "junkie" took me up on my challenge and engaged me in debate about it.  His argument was that the devastation and havoc that drug addiction bring to an addict and (arguably more importantly) his family and society are so massive that that he must not be allowed to get away with thinking his state is milder than it is.  He must realise how low he has sunk if there is to be any hope of his wanting to change.

This is interesting to me because something in it rings true in spite of my previous certainty that my attitude was the noble and Christian one.

And, as I write, I'm thinking of hearing the American evangelist Billy Graham preaching in Wembley, Parkhead, Murrayfield and Pittodrie two decades ago and being struck by how his popularity was surprising given that he basically, from the Bible, told the crowds in each venue how sinful they were, and how lost they were without God.  You might have expected them to run him out of town but, no, many of them came back the next night and brought their friends!  But he was scratching where it itched.  People need to be confronted with the truth even if the truth is unpalatable. 

And that immediately leads me to think of Jesus in this great story:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4%3A4-30&version=NLT.  He doesn't miss and hit the wall when he tells the woman how sinful she is and yet she goes and gets her friends to come and meet him!

So, then, what is my conclusion?  Am I going to start allowing the word "junkie" to be used by prisoners in the Chaplaincy?  I'll need to think about that some more.  Feel free to give your opinion.



Blogger versus Twitter... Fight!

Earlier today I was thinking about my completely irrational hatred of telephone conversations.  I was wondering if I'd have been happier to have been alive in the Olden Days before the phone was invented.  I love Jane Austen books.  Maybe I should have been Emma or Jane or Elizabeth... well okay, if I can choose then obviously Elizabeth cos she gets Darcy and Pemberley and his ten thousand a year.... 

But, anyway, of course I would NOT voluntarily leave 2012 for those days because I'd miss my beloved internet.  I love the bloomin' thing!

Earlier this evening Him Indoors, Firstborn, Blue-eyed Boy and Penultimate Child were watching Raiders of the Lost Ark on tv and I was alleviating the boredom by trying to find, through Google, the meaning of the word that Marion Ravenwood says in the drinking competition.  (It sounds like pistore or pistole).  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUAueFkVYvA  All right, so I didn't quite find the answer but it kept me busy.  Google is SO great!   :)

One of the features of living in this era is that the goalposts are always shifting.  So, regarding the blogosphere, my question is what its future?  With Twitter's success and popularity, I'm wondering whether the truth is that - with the best will in the world - most people actually don't have the time or energy to read long posts on blogs no matter how worthy they are.  Is the 140 character limit a concession to the modern busy life?  Not a bad thing, necessarily, just a reality.

When I was at school, English class included practice in "precis" or summarising.  I did quite well in my higher English but summary was never my strong point!  As a minister, I've had plenty of experience of preaching sermons of 20 minutes or more without interruption.  So limiting my waffle to 140 characters is a real challenge.  But is that where people are at?  If so, that's where I want to be!

I am as passionate about sharing Prisonworld with an audience as I was in the days when I blogged almost daily.  If we who know what it's like don't do so then it's all out of sight and out of mind for most people.  But I need to work out how and where to do it.  To blog or not to blog, to tweet or not to tweet, to facebook or not to facebook.... Shakespeare didn't have all that lot to worry about!