Manchester is the most linguistically diverse city in Europe

Here is an interesting article in today's Guardian, especially for those of us resident in Manchester. 

Apparently, Manchester is the most linguistically diverse city in Europe and is second only to New York in the world. Linguists at University of Manchester have discovered at least 153 different languages spoken in the city, with Prof. Yaron Matras suggesting the true figure could be even higher.

It is reported that a variety of rare languages are spoken in the city including Chitrali from northern Pakistan, Konkani from western India, Dagaare from Ghana, and Uyghur from north-western China. The city also attracts increasing numbers of European citizens. 

Around two-thirds of Mancunian schoolchildren are bilingual and, with a population of half a million - a fraction the size of London - Manchester clearly punches above its weight in terms of number of languages spoken.

It is often stated, with little more than anecdotal backing, that the world is on Manchester's doorstep. Yet here is the proof that those who make such casual remarks so desperately hoped existed. Much more importantly, what a spur this should be to all Christians in the Manchester area.

God has presented us with a unique opportunity to reach plethora of linguistic groups and cultures. What better way to 'make disciples of all nations' than by reaching those nations and linguistic groups on our doorstep? How much more likely are such people to return to their own countries and share the gospel there, having first heard it in Manchester? How many countries and cultures would be positively affected by the gospel if we, in Manchester, made a concerted effort to reach the various nationalities in this city?

Praise God for this unique chance to share the gospel with all the world without having to leave the confines of our own city! Let's just make sure we don't squander the opportunity. The world may have come to us but of what value is that if, far from going into 'all the world', we can't even be bothered to make it into our own city?

Polly Toynbee and what's bad for politics

Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and outgoing president of the British Humanist Association (BHA), writes in today's Guardian that 'Atheists are better for politics than believers'. Whilst I would fiercely argue against any notion that Atheists are somehow objectively worse for politics than believers, I'm not convinced Ms Toynbee's case is particularly well established.

In the first instance, she argues:

Rows over gay marriage and women bishops bewilder most people. With overwhelming popular support for both, how can abstruse theology and unpleasant prejudice cause such agitation at Westminster and in the rightwing press? Politics looks even more out of touch when obscure doctrine holds a disproportionate place in national life.

By all means, disagree with the theological stances that would eschew gay marriage and the appointment of women bishops. However, there is nothing 'abstruse' or 'obscure' about these doctrinal positions. In fact, as doctrinal positions go, these views are widely held, fairly well known and not particularly hard to find in the texts from which they are drawn. More to the point, there are plenty of believers who favour one, or both, of these policies. This blog has made no secret of its view on marriage (see http://smkneale.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/redefining-marriage-and-c4m.html), favouring equality in law by removing legislation on marriage altogether and introducing civil partnerships for all, leaving marriage as a non-legal ceremony performed according to one's preferred tradition.

Further, it is disingenuous to claim the government's proposals carry 'overwhelming support'. Majority support, arguably, but an overwhelming majority seems to be overstating the case somewhat. Behind the comment is the sense that religious feeling is driving all opposition to gay marriage and women bishops. Certainly, in the case of the latter, religious feeling is driving the outcome, though it is surely right that those who belong to the Church in question should have final say in matters related to that organisation. It would be bizarre in the extreme for those who do not belong to the Church, who have no affiliation with the organisation and avowedly refuse to join because of their disdain for that institution to be the ones to have the final word in its affairs. That would be the equivalent of allowing the Conservatives the final word on appointments within the Labour Party! However, in the case of gay marriage, as the census figures highlight - to which Toynbee herself alludes - the numbers opposed to gay marriage seem higher than those claiming any form of religious affiliation (1). Most strikingly, given the title of her piece, Toynbee seems to be suggesting that opposition to these proposals automatically makes one 'worse' for politics.

Toynbee also highlights the recent 'right to die' debate. She argues it is religious conscience that prevents us from allowing individuals to end their own lives, laying the blame squarely at the door of '26 bishops and other religious lords'. There is undoubtedly a large number of people who, as a direct result of their religious convictions, vehemently oppose such laws. However, the census figures once again undo Toynbee's argument. If religious affiliation is significantly down as she claims then religious affiliation cannot account for the entirety of numbers in opposition to the policy. Again, Toynbee's argument appears to be if one disagrees with the policy they are, by definition, bad for politics.

Toynbee goes on to highlight that Section 5 of the Public Order Act led to an 'extraordinary alliance of extreme religions wanting the right to preach fire and brimstone against gays joined with free thinkers wanting the right to be rude about religions'. Her comment demonstrates her prejudice; offence being legitimate when directed against those whom she is not at all concerned about offending. Frankly, this blogger would defend her right to 'be rude' about religions for, as she rightly notes, 'in the rough and tumble of free speech, no one can be protected against feeling offended'. She goes on to give a common objection to the Moral Argument for the existence of God, based on a woeful understanding of the argument itself. She claims the religious argue Atheists 'have no moral compass', though somewhat scuppers her own argument by stating 'wise atheists make no moral claims, seeing good and bad randomly spread among humanity regardless of faith'. Quite how one can have a moral compass whilst at the same time making no moral claims seems difficult to maintain. Nevertheless, contrary to her understanding, the moral argument revolves around the very premise that Atheists do have a moral compass! Indeed, Toynbee's own rejection of certain conservative principles and what she perceives as religious opposition to certain government proposals raised in her piece belie her assertion to make no moral claim.

All of this, she avers, means Atheists are better for politics than believers. However, it appears what Toynbee really means is those who disagree with her are bad for politics. Frankly, this position negates her claim to be 'with Voltaire, defending to the death people's right to believe whatever they choose, but fighting to prevent them imposing their creeds on others'. For, on Toynbee's view, whilst people are free to believe what they want without imposing their creed on others, she is free to believe what she wants whilst imposing her creed on others. In truth, neither believers nor Atheists are fundamentally bad for politics. It is this position espoused by Toynbee that seems particularly problematic.

Notes

1. See http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984 for a statement on the overstatement of figures both 'for' and 'against' the proposal and the actual figures delivered from various polls.

Some brief questions on the ordination of women bishops within the Anglican Communion

Several things have confused me about the recent Anglican vote on the ordination of women bishops. They are as follows:

1. Why do so many, unconnected to the Anglican Church, feel strongly one way or the other about this issue?
2. Why do so many feel they have any cause or right to voice an opinion and, more to the point, for it to be heeded on matters within an institution to which they are otherwise entirely unconnected?
3. Why did recourse to scripture feature so little on either side of the debate (irrespective of the side of the debate to which one falls)? 
4. Why are those in favour of female bishops so concerned with appearing 'in-step' with the feelings of the country when plethora of other views held, even within the liberal wing of the church, are out of step with modern British culture?
5. Why are those against female bishops bothering to mount any sort of case when the argument, to all intents and purposes, was lost with the ordination of female vicars?
6. Why do those against the move draw the line at ordaining women bishops? Is it not arbitrary to accept female vicars but not female bishops? If the issue is one of authority, why not accept the move and draw the line at Archbishop or the see of Canterbury itself?
7. How can those against female bishops consistently assent to the Queen as head of the Church?

The gap between reality and Nick Griffin's imagination

It should come as no surprise to anyone of any sense that Nick Griffin is a hulking buffoon of the highest order. In his latest attempt to gain notoriety and elicit any sort of attention, Griffin has claimed to be both the voice of the "silent majority" as well as the voice of the British Christian. Sadly, the gap between reality and Nick Griffin's imagination is far from small. 

In the first instance, were the BNP truly the voice of the silent majority, one cannot help but think they would not be quite so silent in a general election. By its very nature, a secret ballot allows those who would be silent in public to say something secretly in the privacy of the voting booth. Indeed, that is why the secret ballot was brought in! A quick glance at the number of MPs returned by the BNP puts paid to that theory. Even a look at their better return of local councillors hardly rescues this claim. 

Grififn could, of course, be claiming to represent the majority of people who don't turn out to vote at all. Sadly, this is a claim so unquantifiable it is hardly worth making. More than that, were they making any sort of impact at all, Griffin's leadership of an already unpopular fringe party full or thugs, racists and cretins would not be faltering to the extent that it evidently is. Note their single significant electoral gain, Andrew Brons MEP, has recently defected from the party.

More bizarrely, Nick Griffin now claims to be standing up for the downtrodden British Christian. Whatever one feels about B&B owners turning away a homosexual couple from their establishment, or one's right to voice such opinions, it is hard to see how Nick Griffin is any way reflecting general Christian feeling. Griffin's publication of the homosexual couple's address via twitter and suggestion of sending a "British Justice" team to their house leads one to conclude that he, at the very least, hasn't read his Bible properly. Quite rightly, his comments and suggestions have been denounced in the secular press, in the Christian press, and by the gay and Christian couples involved.

The reality is, Nick Griffin and the BNP hold policies antithetical to plethora of the Bible's teaching. They stand on a platform which the majority of Christian believers find repugnant. They do not have a foothold in the churches of Britain and they are not in line with the teachings of the churches in Britain. In the few situations where they coincidentally find themselves in accidental agreement with Christian people, their response is so alarmist, extreme and unbiblical that no bible-believing Christian could possibly have any business associating with them.

Now, one may feel I am unfairly singling out the BNP given that other mainstream parties also fail to live up to scripture. Whilst it is true that other mainstream parties fail to uphold basic biblical teaching, one cannot deny they have never claimed to be trying. Nor have they claimed the support, or to be acting as a specific outlet, for Christianity in Britain. The BNP, more specifically Nick Griffin, has made such a claim and it has been found considerably wanting.

In the words of a friend of mine: "Dear Nick Griffin... shut up."

Are you really busy?

I have been remiss and failed to update this blog for some time. That I don't simply write things for writing's sake perhaps makes me a good blogger? More likely, it makes me a bad writer (or, at the very least, a poor thinker) for having nothing to write! 

Sadly (or, mercifully, depending on your view), I still have nothing to say.  Instead, I thought I would post something somebody else has said... mainly because they have said it in a better way than I would.

So, from the Challies blog, I suggest you read this. I found it interesting, at any rate.

Battling Depression

I have made no secret of my depressive illness (see 'An Experience of Depression'). My illness was well known, and palpably obvious, in the church I attended at my worst. Details of it did the rounds very quickly - not as a basis of gossip - but for Christian brothers and sisters, who loved both me and my wife, to pray and, in the true spirit of 1 John 3:18, do all they could to practically help - and indeed they did!

The Desiring God blog has uploaded an interesting video by biblical counsellor Ed Welch. He raises some useful questions and has an interesting take on the issue of depression amongst Christians.

I am not wholly convinced of his stance but it is certainly interesting and worth hearing nonetheless.

Unbeknownst to me when I began writing, and by some happy accident, the echurch blog has today posted on the Mental Health (discrimination) Bill due to be debated in parliament on Friday (14th Sept). I would add my plea to urge your MP to attend the debate and to back the bill.

Authorship of Hebrews

Over at the 'who's that preacher?' blog, Gary Benfold has written a post on the authorship of Hebrews. He outlines his reasons for holding to the Pauline authorship of the letter and makes a case for why this is both significant and important.

Far be it from me to disagree with a more learned brother but I must admit to struggling with some of his arguments. Mr Benfold tells us there are four key arguments against the Pauline authorship (which he subsequently says are flimsy and therefore push him toward accepting that Paul was the author):

1. The Greek style is very different
2. There is no opening greeting
3. Hebrews quotes the Septuagint and Paul does not
4. 2:3 suggests the writer heard the gospel second-hand, Paul insist he received it directly from the Lord

Were these (a) the actual arguments and (b) the only arguments, I would agree the evidence against Pauline authorship is flimsy.

Here are some of the reasons I am not convinced Paul wrote Hebrews and on which I find myself at variance with Mr Benfold:

1. It is not merely the fact that there is no opening greeting that speaks against the Pauline authorship. Rather, it is Paul's specific insistence that he will always confirm the authenticity of any letter he writes (see 2 Thess 3:17 and Col 4:18). The lack of any such identification suggests Hebrews was written by somebody else. It is not an argument from silence, as Mr Benfold suggests ("it doesn't say Paul wrote it, so he didn't"), it is an argument from Paul's clear statement he will always identify himself. In this letter, he doesn't.
2. Stylistic difference can occur in letters written by the same person e.g. the letters of John. However, were we to accept that Paul wrote Hebrews, it would appear his style was largely consistent across all his epistles with the pointed exception of Hebrews. Whilst this is by no means conclusive evidence that Paul did not write the letter, suggesting Paul was the author raises more questions than it answers on this point.
3. Heb 2:3 clearly states the gospel was first 'spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him'. The 'us' is a clearly distinct group from 'those who heard Him' (otherwise those who heard him are confirming it to themselves making the distinction pointless). Gal 1:11f makes clear Paul heard the gospel directly from Christ but 2:3 definitively writes the author out of the 'those who heard Him' camp - it doesn't allow room to be in both. If Paul is the author, he cannot be in the 'those who heard Him' bracket even though he clearly places himself there in Gal 1:11f.
4. Mr Benfold suggests Gal 2:5-9 indicates the same thing as Heb 2:3. But Gal 2:5-9 makes clear that Peter, James and John were confirming Paul's apostleship (not the gospel he received) because this was (a) 14 years after Paul's conversion; (b) he had already met with Peter and James before this and (c) had been preaching the gospel long before they recognised his apostleship. Heb 2:3, on the other hand, does refer quite explicitly to receipt of the gospel message. So Gal 2:5-9 and Heb 2:3 deal with confirmation of two different things: Paul's apostleship (Gal 2:5-9) and the Gospel message (Heb 2:3).
5. Mr Benfold argues, in favour of Pauline authorship, the writer is close to Timothy - who Paul elsewhere called his 'son'. Not only does Heb 13:23 do nothing to particularly suggest Paul is writing, that he doesn't use the word 'son' in reference to Timothy (as he does elsewhere) is further reason to reject the Pauline authorship. Unless, of course, Paul is the only person who could possibly have been close to Timothy?
6. Whilst 2 Pet 3:15 states that Paul has written to Peter's readers, Peter does not address his second letter specifically to a Jewish audience (note the greeting in 2 Pet 1:1 compared to his first letter). In fact, there is every reason to believe Peter is writing with a Gentile audience in mind (or a mixed congregation). That 3:15 says Paul wrote to these believers, does nothing to indicate he was the author of Hebrews. All it tells us is Peter is writing to somebody Paul has already written to and could refer to any of Paul's epistles.

However, it is true that the authorship is of some importance. Mr Benfold is absolutely right to ask the question 'if you don't think Paul wrote it - why is it still in your bible?'. I very much agree with his argument against the view that Hebrews is in scripture because "it's obvious". Given that I don't think Paul wrote it, how do we justify its place in scripture?:

1. Acceptance into the canon wasn't strictly based on apostolic authorship. We have several books e.g. Mark, Luke, James, Jude that were not written by apostles yet found their way (rightly) into the canon. The three tests were (a) is it in line with the orthodox teaching?; (b) is it accepted by the worldwide church?; and; (c) did it have any apostolic authority?
2. Hebrews meets the criteria for inclusion into the canon on points (a) and (b). A letter in line with orthodox teaching and accepted across the worldwide church, is strongly indicative (though not a cast iron guarantee) of apostolic authority.
3. More importantly, rejection of Pauline authorship does not mean that Paul did not ever see the letter and give it his seal of approval (thus giving it the weight of apostolic authority). In fact, most of the prime candidates are folk close to Paul so, without writing the letter, Paul could easily have seen it and approved it
4. Rejection of Pauline authorship does not mean that another apostle other than Paul may have given it approval

On conflating Evangelicals with extremists

It is rarely clear whether sweeping statements conflating Evangelicals with extremists are borne out of anti-religious, secular prejudice or sheer ignorance of that branch of theological thought. Alan Judd, writing an otherwise interesting and informative piece in the Telegraph discussing why certain free school applications fail, has made such a statement. Of faith-based applications, he writes:

The trouble is, as always, when it’s taken to extremes, whether it’s evangelical Christians, totalitarian Muslims or segregationist Jews. Such applications need careful vetting, not because there shouldn’t be far-out religious and ideological beliefs, but because the taxpayer shouldn’t pay to propagate them – and because children should be able to participate in a wider society without having their horizons narrowed by fundamentalism.

Whether Mr Judd's categorisation of Evangelicalism under the same banner as 'totalitarian Muslims' or 'segregationist Jews' is borne of ignorance or prejudice is somewhat immaterial. What is material, as Archbishop Cranmer notes, is that "this is a senior adviser to the Secretary of State for Education, involved in the vetting of applicants, who equates ‘evangelical’ with ‘totalitarian’ and ‘segregationist’, thereby writing off an entire corpus of Protestant theology and our nation’s history with murderous regimes and sectarian bigotry".

His Grace makes the following observations:

Certainly, there are one or two extremists who term themselves evangelical. But every denomination of every religion has its fanatics and extremists. Consider the outrage if Alan Judd had written: 

...when it’s taken to extremes, whether it’s Catholic Christians, totalitarian Muslims or segregationist Jews.

or 

...when it’s taken to extremes, whether it’s totalitarian Christians, Sunni Muslims or segregationist Jews.

or 

...when it’s taken to extremes, whether it’s segregationist Christians, totalitarian Muslims or Orthodox Jews.

It is astonishing that he chose to qualify ‘Muslims’ and ‘Jews’ with adjectives of political oppression or separatism, but for Christians he singled out a distinct theological movement. It is evidence of a prejudicial mindset which some might term 'Christianophobic'.

If he had written (say) ‘sectarian Christians, totalitarian Muslims or segregationist Jews’, that would have shown impartiality. But he didn’t. And by choosing to disparage a particular branch of Christian theology, the DfE is pandering to the aggressive, extremist secular-humanist agendas of the NSS and the BHA.

Cranmer also goes on to note the distinct impact of Evangelicals in British history and society to, quite forcefully, make the point that Evangelicalism and extremism are truly not one and the same.

For all the talk of momentous steps forward...

For all the talk of historic encounters and momentous steps forward:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/27/queen-martin-mcguinness-shake-hands

The reality of the situation continues unabated:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/12/orange-order-parade-belfast-riots

Forgiving the Unrepentant

I have spent the last few days grappling with Mt 18:15-20. The first half of this passage details how we ought to deal with a brother in sin. Jesus appears to say we should try and deal with the issue as privately as possible but, if the brother remains unrepentant, escalate the publicity of the matter - each time with an eye on helping the brother recognise, and repent of, his sin - until it is brought to the attention of the whole church. If repentance is still not forthcoming the individual should be removed from the community of believers.


Given that Matthew places this passage between the parable of the lost sheep and the parable of the unforgiving servant, it seems strange that a clear command to put out the unrepentant brother from the community of believers should be included. It is certainly worth noting how Paul views such a removal in 2 Thes 3:14. He appears to say this is not as a punishment but a corrective measure i.e. the aim is to publicly shame an individual into recognising their sin in the hope that this will lead them to repentance. The theory, so far as I can tell, is to exercise some level of discipline on the individual until there is some repentance.


However, this leads to an interesting question. Is it right for us to forgive an unrepentant person? On first reading, in Mt 18:15-20, the issue is less to do with forgiveness and more to do with encouraging repentance. However, Peter's following question suggests that he saw Jesus' teaching and the nature of forgiveness as closely entwined. It also appears that Jesus' words in 18:15b suggest that forgiveness is involved, 'if he hears you, you have gained your brother', but this seems to follow the repentance rather than representing an automatic response irrespective of whether the individual acknowledges their sin. 


Similarly, when Paul deals with the issue of forgiveness, he says we should be 'forgiving... as God in Christ forgave you (Eph 4:32)'. Now, unless one holds a universalist position, it is apparent that God forgives those who are repentant and does not forgive those who are unrepentant. Given this, and the fact that our model of forgiveness is based on God, does this lead us to conclude that - whilst we should always be ready to forgive and such forgiveness should extend to any sin committed against us - forgiveness only extends to the repentant? Or, to put it another way, is it only possible to forgive those who are repentant?


Of course, Jesus' words in Lk 6:27-38 make it abundantly clear how we are to treat even those who hate us. More to the point, Mt 6:12 and Lk 11:4 suggest our forgiveness should extend to all those who wrong us. More starkly, Jesus goes on in Mt 6:14-15 to state exactly why we should forgive. Nevertheless, the question remains, is Jesus' instruction intended to be indiscriminate and automatic or is it only applied to the repentant?


In truth, I am not sure I have reached any solid conclusion on this issue. In lieu of a solid conclusion, here are three articles outlining different positions. It is fair to say each of them make valid points and have their merits:


'Is forgiveness always right and required?' - Justin Taylor (The Gospel Coalition)

'Forgiving the Unrepentant' - RT Kendall (Christianity Today)

'As we Forgive our Debtors' - John Piper (Desiring God)

Let me know your thoughts by leaving a comment. Should we forgive, and is it even possible to forgive, the unrepentant?

Church/Family Balance

The Gospel Coalition blog have posted an excellent article titled '3 reflections on leading your family well'. Let me strongly urge you to read it.

We often talk about work/life balance in relation to secular jobs but we rarely apply this same logic to the church. If anything, church is often pushed to the detriment of family life and a lack of quality time spent with our family can be brushed aside as sacrificial service in the Lord's work. The Gospel Coalition highlights the clear and obvious danger of this for church ministers and offers three reflections on how to avoid the problems of church/family imbalance. However, I would venture that this is equally significant for those not in the full-time employ of the church.

The TGC blog states 'A day off is not just a good idea... it is essential'. I agree with the sentiment and, for most working ministers, this is a sensible and pragmatic step. However, for those not employed by the church, there is a secular job to take into account as well. The minister's service in the church is tied up directly with their day job. Therefore, it is feasibly possible to insist, as a church, they take one day off during the week. However, for the majority of the congregation, at least Monday-Friday is eaten up with secular work meaning service in the church must revolve around evenings and weekends. This, in some respect, makes it harder for the average member to strike a balance between serving in the church, a secular job and spending meaningful time with family. Where a minister has to contend with balancing two things (job/church and family) the average member must contend with three (job, church and family). Whilst a minister may take one day off in the week, that option is often not open to the church member who holds a secular job and wishes to serve meaningfully in the church whilst not neglecting their familial responsibilities. 

For the minister, I suspect a major issue is feeling they must plug all the gaps that cannot (or will not) be filled through the service of members. This can lead to overwork, often at the expense of family relationships. For the average member, a secular job is generally considered a necessity. The church, quite rightly, encourages individuals to use what time they have in the Lord's service. Unfortunately, with the immovable obligation of a secular job, this often ends up being at the expense of quality family time. Alternatively, one might set aside time for family and, with the pressure of secular work, quickly find themselves feeling guilty for a lack of service in the church. I suspect the sum of all this boils down to charity on all sides. Members must recognise the pressures of pastoral ministry and seek to help ministers strike an appropriate church/family balance by allowing them a day off and, more importantly, respecting it when it is given. Equally, ministers must be wary of pressing church members into service to the detriment of their family life bearing in mind occupational obligations.

However, all of this does very little to tackle the real issue. The central question is what does an actual work/church/family balance look like and what pragmatic steps can be taken to obtain it? I suspect those of us inclined toward introspective self-flagellation are always liable to feel we favour one thing over another. Turning down the opportunity to serve in the church because our wives and children deserve more quality time is liable to induce as much guilt as taking on such obligations. The standard church line, which essentially challenges individuals' use of time as a means of encouraging service in the church, is not an unfair or illegitimate one. However, it is only valid when serving in the church is contrasted with our personal desires and pastimes as opposed to our obligations and responsibilities. Neglecting our familial responsibilities is just as dishonouring as a refusal to serve the Lord in other ways. Stories abound of individuals who hate the church because their parents' seemed more concerned with meetings and the salvation of strangers than they did in the lives of their own children.

Ideally, one would put aside one day to be spent with our families alongside our secular work and service in the church. Unfortunately, the demands of secular jobs are ever increasing and the days of 9-5 are long gone. With most of the Western world in recession, those who do manage to hold onto their jobs are being asked to pick up the slack of the ones who have been let go. It is nigh on impossible to try and make dogmatic statements about how we reach an adequate balance in the modern world. Ultimately, it seems there is little more we can do than take a charitable view of others ability to serve and give an honest assessment of our own circumstances. It may even be that different things take priority during our different seasons of life.

Why I struggle with the government work programme

Today's Guardian reports that coachloads of jobseekers were brought to London to work as unpaid stewards for the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations. The participants were told to sleep, without shelter, under London Bridge, were made to change their clothes in public and were given no access to toilets for over 24 hours. The jobseekers understood they would receive a wage but, upon arrival, were told the work was unpaid and 'if they did not accept it they would not be considered for well-paid work at the Olympics'. Not only has this security firm, Close Protection UK (CPUK), been granted similar contracts throughout the Olympics but this whole sorry affair was conducted as part of the government work programme for jobseekers.

I am sure many of the most unpleasant elements of this particular work placement scheme are not typical of the overall government programme. Clearly this, nonetheless disgusting, example of a work placement scheme does not represent the norm. However, there are two key elements of this case that are typical of the overall scheme. Firstly,there is a private company utilising the services of individuals who are desperately seeking work. Secondly, individuals are unpaid despite the evident existence of work needing to be done.

I have long had an issue with the government work programme and do not want to use the abnormal elements of this particular case as an exemplar. However, I will comment on the elements that are typical across the work placement scheme. Let me briefly outline why I find this work programme so repellent.


In the first instance, scripture states that 'the laborer [sic] deserves his wages' (Lk 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18, ESV). This statement is clear enough: where there is work to be done an individual ought to be paid. Paul even quotes the Jewish law which states 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain' (1 Tim 5:18; 1 Cor 9:9, ESV). This is then applied to Christian workers - if God cares about the welfare of a working ox to the extent that he enshrines care for them in the law, how much more should we care for the welfare of working people - but has clear applications in the wider working world. Equally, in Malachi 3:5, 'those who oppress the hired worker in his wages' are listed on a par with sorcerers, adulterers and 'those who swear falsely'.


In stark contrast to the scriptural requirement that a labourer is worthy of his wages, the government work programme appears to say the opposite. By asking individuals to undertake work for no pay, they suggest that a worker is not worthy of his wages. Indeed, they suggest the worker requires no wages because the work undertaken provides the individual with valuable experience. However, there is evidently valuable work to be completed - certainly if it is not valuable then the argument for it being useful experience goes out the window - and if a company wishes such work to be done, it should be obligated to pay for its completion. To do anything other is to stand in contradiction of scripture, to deprive an individual of their due and to inhibit them from undertaking work that will allow them to receive a livelihood. There is something eminently distasteful about private companies running a rolling placement programme without paying the individuals undertaking the work. In truth, if there is the work to be done there is no reason why such a programme cannot offer paid jobs rather than unpaid experience. If there is no work to be done, the experience can hardly be said to be valuable.


Those who, at a difficult time of recession, are struggling to find work were pushed toward a programme which is supposed to help them find a full-time role. However, most of the jobs on offer are not ones for which any prior experience is required. Shelf-stacking in Tesco and stewarding at events rarely requires previous experience and will do very little to offer individuals any advantage when applying for paid work. In the early days of the programme, individuals were threatened with the removal of their benefit were they not willing to participate. This strong-armed individuals into giving private companies free labour and ate into any time they had to search and apply for paid positions. Since the government u-turn on this element of the programme, the less savvy are still likely to feel the weight of pressure.


I am certainly not against the principle of offering those out of work a short-term placement to give them work experience and bolster their employment opportunities. However, if there is work to be done, the least we can do is pay the individuals who undertake it.

Equating theological knowledge and ministry success with spiritual maturity

A fantastic post on The Gospel Coalition Blog by Paul Tripp warning about the danger of equating theological knowledge and ministry success with spiritual maturity.

I will not pass comment here but will offer a couple of selected quotes. In respect to equating theological knowledge with spiritual maturity, he says:

There is a huge difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is an accurate understanding of truth. Wisdom is understanding and living in light of how that truth applies to the situations and relationships of your daily life. Knowledge is an exercise of your brain. Wisdom is the commitment of your heart that leads to life transformation.

In respect to equating ministry success with an endorsement by God of spiritual maturity, he says:

God has the authority and power to use whatever instruments he chooses in whatever way he chooses. Ministry success is always more a statement about God than about the people he uses for his purpose.

Do read the full post - it really is insightful.

Michael Gove and the King James Bible

The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has vowed to spend £370,000 sending a King James Bible to every state school in the country. According to the Guardian, the aim of the proposal is to 'help pupils learn about the Bible's impact "on our history, language, literature and democracy" and will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the authorised version's publication'. Unsurprisingly, several church leaders have given their assent to the move whilst the National Secular Society has vehemently opposed it. Equally predictably, an 'online Guardian poll showed an 82% opposition'. To the Guardian's surprise (despite failing to catch anybody unawares who pays any sort of attention to what the man says), Richard Dawkins has come out in support of the proposal in today's Observer.


Now, one must point out a few issues with this. In the first instance, despite Gove's claim that this will aid pupil learning, one gets the distinct impression this is a rather more self-aggrandising proposal. For example, does learning about the cultural impact of the King James Bible require gold-leaf lettering stating that the Education Secretary personally sent the Bible to the school? Similarly, is Michael Gove's own personal foreword - set to replace the already existing foreword - really necessary to achieve his stated aims? One suspects the answer, in both cases, is a firm 'no'. The Education Secretary has not asked whether any school wants a new copy of the King James Bible but has simply foisted this upon them (along with his own, personal foreword). This suggests he is less concerned with how the school will use it for educational purposes and rather more concerned with having his name in gold-leaf lettering.


In respect to Gove's stated aims, there are several further questions. It seems highly unlikely that there are any state schools in the country that do not hold at least one copy of a King James Bible already. Even were we to grant the presupposition that there are indeed some schools without their own copy, how effective could one Bible conceivably be as a teaching aid in a school of several hundred pupils? Moreover, why is he sending one copy to every school in the country - as this proposal clearly presumes one solitary Bible is an adequate teaching aid for any school - when there are doubtless many schools that already own one?


However, the biggest issue is not that Mr Gove is spending £370,000 on something that will do absolutely nothing to achieve his stated aims. Nor is it that this proposal amounts to little more than a self-important act of hubris. The real issue is, despite £370,000 amounting to little more than governmental pocket change, many people will become extremely exercised about this issue and, in the process, divert their attention away from the very real millions and billions squandered elsewhere. In reality, despite my feeling that spending £370,000 on a single King James Bible for every school in the country is not a wise use of that money, it is nevertheless not a large enough sum to trouble me too much if it is spent in this way. Sadly, many people will spend so long agitating for, or against, this colossal waste of time that they will overlook much larger, more significant issues taking sums out of the public purse.

Freedom of Speech and Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act

For one to find members of the Christian Institute and National Secular Society signing up for the same campaign is a rare occurrence indeed. Moreover, when one finds Peter Tatchell vigorously defending Evangelical street preachers live on television - singling them out as a speific case in point - one must seriously consider whether there is something painfully wrong with a particular piece of legislation. Certainly, the supporters of the Reform Section 5 Campaign think so.


Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act outlaws 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour'. It is the contention of the Reform Section 5 Campaign that the word 'insulting' should be removed from this legislation. The 'insulting' clause, they aver, 'restricts free speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even preachers'. Indeed, at least one of the 'street preachers' listed on the campaign website is known to this blogger.


So, why is such a small clause causing such a big hoo-ha? Ultimately, this campaign is about freedom of speech and the reach of the law. In effect, this clause is being used to shut down the right to disagree, the freedom of open debate and allows subjective feelings, quite apart from any intention on the part of the speaker, to criminalise individuals for merely expressing opinion. In equally disturbing measure, it allows the Police to be the initial arbiters of that deemed insulting and, even the briefest look at the 'victims of section 5' page, shows that they are neither proportionate, fair nor reasonable in their interpretation.


I am well aware that, in certain Christian circles, street preaching has fallen out of favour and is considered to have had its day. However, this law has far wider reaching implications for Christians beyond those taking the gospel 'into the highways and byways' (to quote another of my street preaching friends). Just as those who preach the gospel in town centres are being criminalised for expressing statements from scripture (often, not even for expressing a view ex nihilo but following some leading question eliciting the response), it will not be long before what was considered criminal in town centres is made criminal in churches and, shortly after, even the privacy of one's own home. To be frank, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one of those who felt 'insulted' in the street may, one day, enter a church only to find their sensibilities insulted in like manner.


This clause is neither necessary nor equitable in a society which values the freedom of speech. It is my view, along with the signatories to the campaign, that Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act must be reformed. To maintain the law as it stands and to continue to enforce it as has been the case until now, is to oppose free speech, disregard the right to disagree and allow subjective feelings to act as arbiter over objective realities.

Cranmer, censorship and the right to disagree

The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is formally investigating Archbishop Cranmer and has demanded a written response for posting the following "homophobic and offensive" advert on his blog:

His Grace has posted an unofficial response here.


This blog has made no secret of its view on the Coalition for Marriage (see 'Redefining Marriage and the C4M') but thoroughly defends the right to disagree. Nevertheless, that Cranmer - an advocate of the petition - is being forced to provide a written response to claims of homophobia for posting an advert which advocates the conservation of an already existing law is utterly ludicrous.


It has been argued by some that the 70% claim in the advert is fallacious. However, His Grace is not required to defend this assertion as he did not carry out the research. Therefore, he must only defend against the accusation of homophobia. In truth, it is thoroughly unclear what aspect of the advert is homophobic. 


Whilst one may not agree with the premise, purpose or aim of the C4M, to post an advert which states a significant proportion of people wish to conserve the current state of the law on marriage seems little more than a point of fact. Unless, of course, it is now offensive and homophobic to restate existent legislation and proffer an opinion on its relative merits.


Frankly, this attack on Cranmer serves nothing other than to make him a martyr (for a second time) and to disseminate the above advert to a wider audience. For example, this blog would not have published the advert (specifically because it does not support the C4M, though it is considerate and respectful of believers who do) but for this ridiculous story!


* Update (14th May 2012) - His Grace has posted his initial, official response here.

Will churches ever escape the use of jargon?

I wonder at what point we decided it was helpful to incorporate our own, made up, Christian jargon into church? Do we not have enough legitimate biblical and theological words to explain without adding our own phrases to the plethora of things to make comprehensible? There seems to be something inherently odd in seeking to use the most accessible bible translation such that, in the spirit of Tyndale, it could be understood by the modern day plough boy whilst simultaneously peppering our churches with newly created, somewhat meaningless words and phrases.


I accept that certain words and phrases will inevitably be used which, to the average outsider, are obscure at best. Now, I am not an advocate of removing words or phrases from usage simply because somebody may not fully comprehend its meaning. Were we always to do this, we would find ourselves unable to use any words of more than one syllable (and some not even that long)! In reality, many of these words are biblical and carry a specific theological meaning. Rather than simply do away with them, we would do well to employ them and explain their meaning or, as most thinking adults would tend to do, find out what they mean ourselves. So, whilst there is clearly an issue with using accessible words and phrases, the answer lies not in removing them altogether but in adequately explaining what they mean.


Churches have always contended with words and phrases alien to the unchurched. For the last 400 years, we overcame this problem through adequate explanation and meaningful application of the Bible. As the Bible was preached and applied its meaning became clear. The only jargon to contend with were specific words and phrases from the biblical text itself. Words that potentially needed explanation but carried significant meaning were thus not glossed over or removed altogether. Of course, there was always the principle of the perspicuity of scripture which contended that, despite certain difficulties, the Bible was indeed comprehensible to the average man. Nevertheless, this is not really the problem. The issue now lies in the fact we have created our own jargon which is ultimately meaningless, which replace other existent words that already carry the same meaning. It is one thing to have to explain specific biblical or theological phrases, it is quite another to create our own words and phrases adding unnecessarily to the problem!


For example, churches seem desperate to add mottos, statements and sound bites to almost everything. It is as if every aspect of a Christian's life must have some attached phrase to describe what other people simply call 'life'. In some cases, phrases appear to be employed to grant significance to what would otherwise be mundane, ordinary things. We use phrases such as 'intentional living' to refer to, what was once termed, 'Christian witness' and which never carried much more significance than simply going about your everyday life. But now our living must be 'intentional'. One thing life is not for the person living it, is intentional. We may argue that God intended it and, in most cases, our parents' intended it. But the suggestion that we can intentionally 'do life' is a nonsense concept.


If by 'intentional living' we really mean living life as a Christian, it begs the question why do we not simply say what we mean in plain English? It strikes me, to ascribe this sort of phrase to mundane things is to imbue them with a sense of significance that is otherwise lacking from the thing itself. To simply state 'go about living your life normally' does nothing to make an individual feel as though they are doing something for the Lord. That is not to say this is valueless and our ordinary lives should not be lived for the Lord. However, to ascribe significance to the mundane and ordinary allows us to feel we are doing something significant  when, in truth, much of the time we are just living our life as we otherwise would. I wonder if the key to this is to compare the lives of those 'living intentionally' with those non-Christians who simply 'live'. Would their lives be wildly different or, would the major distinction be church on Sunday and the occasional discussion about God?


Equally strange is the move from words rooted in the Greek euangelion (meaning 'Good News' and translated 'Gospel') toward words not particularly mentioned in the biblical text. Our words 'evangelical' and 'evangelism' come from this root. However, we seem keen to replace these phrases with words such as 'missional'. The fact that we use particular words to refer to evangelistic outreach is not, in and of itself, odd. What is odd, is that we already have words, rooted in the biblical text, to denote these activities. Championing words such as 'missional' does nothing to take us beyond the terms 'evangelical' and 'evangelism' - they mean the same thing and are equally meaningless to outsiders. As terms, they seem to add nothing to our understanding of what it is we are ultimately trying to achieve. At best, it takes us slightly further away from something rooted in biblical terminology.


Perhaps the move toward being 'missional' is intended to refer to something we should be doing as a continual part of our lives as opposed to 'evangelism' which, rightly or wrongly, carries connotations of going somewhere for a designated period of time, pointedly sharing the gospel and then going home. The issue with the former is that it often leads to the same conclusion as those who feel all days are special thus we don't celebrate Christmas and birthdays (see 'The obligatory Christmas post...'). Ultimately, if all days are special then, in reality, no days are special. Similarly, if we are continually 'on mission' this often leads to not being 'on mission' at all. Of course, the problem with the latter view is that our evangelistic duty is often measured in involvement and attendance at specific events. Some undisclosed number of meetings attended allows us to mentally consider our evangelistic duty fulfilled. Nevertheless, both terms centre around the same principle and, in reality, the new words require as much explanation as the old and are not really any clearer.


Much of this fascination with new terms and phrases smacks of the same sort of meaningless jargon replete in the business world. We often present our churches as though they were selling product and service. We litter our websites with pointless phrases such as 'Gospel intentionality', 'doing life' and 'missional living'. They sound great, but what do they actually mean? Much of the time, once these phrases are explained, they turn out to mean the same as other words and phrases we already use. Surely there are enough misunderstandings over specific biblical terms and concepts to occupy us for a lifetime. Why, when scripture itself is so often misunderstood, do we think it wise to add our own layer of jargon and terminology which needs equal explanation?


However, behind all of this, the real issue at hand is not terminology. In fact, this terminology is symptomatic of a wider problem. It seems there is an intentional imbuing of significance and value to what was previously considered ordinary and usual. When in the past we met our friends and shared our lives, there was no sense of evangelistic effort or 'doing something for the Lord'. This was just living one's life as one would otherwise live it. Naturally, as a Christian, whatever opportunities to discuss one's faith arose one would try to take. Searching for such opportunities is important and we should, of course, be looking for any and every opportunity to share our faith with those around us. This, however, was never deemed one's evangelistic duty. Evangelism always involved a specific 'going out' with a definite intention to share the gospel with those who would otherwise not hear it.


The sea change has come in viewing one's ordinary life as evangelistically significant. By including life in general as part of our evangelistic outreach, we have made it very easy to dress up doing nothing at all. In going to the pub with friends, something many would be inclined to do anyway, we can pat ourselves on the back as having done some evangelism. We can readily change Christ's clarion call to 'go' into one of expecting opportunities to come to me. The problem with this is that the only people who will be reached are those who come into contact with Christians already. Had the apostles taken the same approach, the gospel would have never left Jerusalem! Many churches now dress up doing ordinary things as the fulfilment of the great commission and, unsurprisingly, we find many actually doing nothing at all.

The role of the pastor's wife

I should go on record from the outset and state that I am neither a pastor nor a pastor's wife. I would like to think, though perhaps erroneously, this admission does not preclude me from comment. It stands to reason that if 'pastor's wife' exists as a role in the church, the average member should be au fait with the position and understand its function. Equally, if no such role exists, the average church member needs to recognise why not and the implications of that reality. That, at any rate, is my defence for discussing this topic.

There is one undeniable reality surrounding this issue - there is such a thing as a pastor's wife. Some pastors are married and, like it or not, their wives have crossed the imperceptible divide from 'wife' to 'pastor's wife'. So, we must accept that pastor's wives do exist. The issue, however, revolves around whether this label is merely a factual descriptor of an objective reality or whether it, in some way, represents a role in the church.

Let us start by tackling what I, rather facetiously, called 'the imperceptible divide from 'wife' to 'pastor's wife''. The truth is, if we are going to refer to 'pastor's wives', prior to her husband becoming pastor the woman was not merely a wife but was a teacher's wife, a lawyer's wife, an electrician's wife or whatever depending on her husband's previous job. It is, for some reason, only poignant to add the man's job to the term 'wife' upon his calling to the ministry. As an objective descriptor of reality, it seems odd to only bother with it in the pastorate. Either it is a worthwhile descriptor which should be applied across all occupations or, it is of almost no value and should be dropped (for further discussion on this point see 'Using the term pastor as a title'). It is made all the more stark for women who have careers of their own. Why is it their husband's job title supersedes their own? Such women are not only pastor's wives but may be teachers, lawyers, electricians, mothers in their own right.

Although an oddity within the working world, we must nevertheless concede that 'pastor's wife' is a factual description of a woman married to a pastor. However, how far can we say it is a specific role within the church? To put it bluntly, it isn't. There is no recognition in scripture of any such office (for those who do not recognise pastorates, these same arguments apply to the office of elder too). The wife of a pastor, or specifically elder, is only mentioned as part of the qualifications for eldership in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. In each case, the emphasis is on the man to be 'the husband of one wife'. There is no instituting of an office in the church nor is there any definition of a specific role.

Why is this significant? All too often churches expect pastor's wives to carry out an endless list of duties without the benefit of contract, salary or even gratitude. It is almost as if the church sees the pastor's wage - specifically assigned to him in exchange for his pastoral work for the church - as also buying his wife's service too in some sort of a buy one get one free labour bargain. But, if pastor's wife is not an office outlined in scripture then to expect a pastor's wife to be more active, more involved and carry a greater burden than the average church member is unfair and unreasonable. It strikes me the reason church ministry is the anomaly which insists on referring to the wife of a pastor by her husband's job is specifically to encourage this sort of deal.

We may argue that part of a wife's role is to support her husband in his work and indeed it is. However, it is not the woman's role to do her husband's work. Nor is it the woman's role to do auxiliary work because of her husband's position. Nobody would expect a woman to become a TA and work gratis for a school simply because her husband was a teacher. At the very least, were she to undertake the role, the school would pay her a salary but there would be no compulsion to go for the position because of her husband. Most people would rightly agree this is appropriate. Why then do these basic principles suddenly not apply in the church? It is perfectly possible that churches may find roles which they believe are best carried out by the pastor's wife. That is fine, but she should not be expected to take the role for nothing. Equally, if she does not want the role for whatever reason, she should not be compelled to take it. 

The pastor's wife is not a role or office within the church. It is a factual description of a woman married to a pastor. Therefore, she should have no more burden or expectation placed upon her than any other member of the church. All too often pastor's wives are expected to plug all the gaps in the church and to take on all the jobs that other members are unwilling to bear. The pastor's wife must already act as a support to her husband who is unable to unload on anybody else in the church. This seems burden enough! Churches need to be sensitive to this and recognise that pastor's wives are not simply there to plug gaps in the church and act as cheap, compelled labour.

Evangelicals are not a voting bloc

O what heights of investigatory journalism! Hitherto it had been widely accepted that all Evangelicals believed the same things, voted for the same people and acted in the same ways. Was it not common knowledge that all Evangelicals are slavering right-wingers concerned with nothing other than tax reduction and vehement opposition to abortion?


Thanks be to Marcia Pally for showing us that Evangelicals 'do not vote in lock step'. Without her we would never have come to the knowledge that 'some [Evangelicals] vote on religious grounds most of the time. But most vote out of a mix of concerns shaped by income, education, and critically, local socio-political culture'. She offers searing insight into the mind of the Evangelical by observing 'if Evangelicals were motivated only by religion, their voting would be more consistent across the demographic and geographic range'. More radical still, she notes that some Evangelicals even vote Democrat and that two Evangelical ministers were involved in the writing of the Democrat party platform whilst another ran the Democratic Nominating Convention.


How is it that such banal, old hat observation is now being passed for journalistic comment? It is hardly new to suggest that Evangelicals are not a homogeneous bloc. It has long been observed that Evangelicalism is, both theologically and politically, a relatively broad church. One would be hard-pressed to find any social, political or religious group in which those who adopt the identifier hold the same views on all areas of politics, theology and ecclesiology. Why is it so hard to comprehend that Evangelicals will hold differing views and that they will place their emphases in different places?


Pally's article is particularly poor in two key regards. Firstly, despite arguing that not all Evangelicals vote the same way, she falls headlong into the erroneous view that theologically speaking they are identical. She states 'If evangelicals were motivated only by religion, their voting would be more consistent across the demographic and geographic range'. This would only be true if Evangelicals were theologically homogeneous, which evidently they are not. Secondly, she assumes all people believe that Evangelicals are homogeneous. The evidence against this is vast, the arguments well rehearsed and the best statements made some significant time ago. This is neither a new observation nor a particularly clever one.


One has to be something of an idiot to think that Evangelicals are identical in their theology, politics, emphases and voting behaviour. What is unclear is whether Pally is the idiot for thinking her statement is something new and insightful; or, whether she merely thinks everyone else is an idiot and would find her article new and insightful when she knew it was no such thing.

After-birth abortion & moral consistency

It was recently reported in the Guardian that some abortion clinics have been offering sex-selection terminations. This led to outrage from pro-life and pro-choice groups and drew criticism from the Health Secretary who condemned the actions as illegal and 'morally wrong'. At the time, I argued that the moral outrage of the Health Secretary and pro-choice groups seemed odd and misplaced. For my thoughts see 'Clinics grants sex-selection abortions'.


Since then two academics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, have published a paper titled 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'. They argue we should now accept the killing of newborn infants for any of the same reasons we currently accept as justifying abortion. They aver that newborn infants are not real people because an "actual person" is one capable of having plans and aims. Just like a foetus, a newborn child is incapable of making plans and aims thus it is only a "potential person". Therefore, though pain can harm the newborn, death cannot.


It is hardly surprising, given the heat generated by the existence of sex-selection abortions, that this paper has also been roundly condemned. However, as with sex-selection abortions, the condemnation of this paper seems somewhat morally inconsistent. Andrew Brown at the Guardian, argues:

The equation of abortion with infanticide is central to the rhetoric of many anti-abortionists. It is something that most pro-choicers emphatically reject. For them, the moral justification of abortion lies in the fact that an embryo is not a human being, whereas a newborn baby is. The moral status of a foetus changes over time in the womb, and while there will always be arguments about when the change should be recognised, there is wide agreement that a time limit on abortion is morally significant.

It certainly seems to follow from Giubilini and Minerva's reasoning that there is nothing wrong with sex-selective infanticide. There's no doubt that having a child of the wrong sex can be frightfully inconvenient for its parents. So if it's all right to abort a girl for her chromosomes, why not kill the newborns as well?

The truth of the matter, however, is that Giubilini and Minerva are at least being morally consistent, even if morally repugnant. If it is acceptable to terminate a foetus; it must also be acceptable to kill newborn children. As Brown states:

Some modern utilitarian philosophers have argued that there is no huge moral difference between a baby about to be born, at the top of the birth canal, and the same baby when it has emerged into the world. I first heard this from John Harris, at Manchester University. But the conclusion he drew was not that we ought to kill newborns.

But how can we argue anything else if 'moral status' is the basis upon which we justify terminations? Indeed, we recognise in law that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 (and we are considered to be harsh compared to most countries in Europe). Therefore, given that we acknowledge children under 10 cannot be legally responsible for their actions, Giubilini and Minerva could indeed extend their theory to cover all minors (certainly those under 10 at any rate).


For the Christian, the answer is clear. The moral case against termination is not based upon an ability to make plans and aims. The case for the Christian lies predominantly in the sixth commandment (Exo 20:13) for which there is no age defining cut off. Indeed, by right of being made in the image of God, all human beings are to be protected and we know that children are 'a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward (Psa 127:3)'.


Nevertheless, for a society that rejects this Christian view, how can they consistently denounce Giubilini and Minerva?

Redefining Marriage and the C4M

A few days ago I read a great piece on the Coalition for Marriage over at Andy's Study. I'm in broad agreement with his conclusions which, unsurprisingly, are largely the same as my reasons for not signing the petition. Interestingly, Matthew Parris has also joined the debate and made similar arguments in his Times column (which have since been picked up by the Christian Institute). There are a few comments I think worth adding.

It is true that the crux of the argument seems to revolve around who defines the word 'marriage'. Frankly, I find it odd that this has caused any argument at all. The reality is anybody can call anything whatever they will. Simply because one person chooses to define something in a particular way doesn't necessarily make it so. That Christians want to define marriage in a particular way does not necessarily make marriage that which they define. Similarly, that the government want to define marriage in a different way does nothing to alter the reality of what a marriage actually is. The suggestions of Andy's Study and Matthew Parris seem to recognise this and therefore suggest, legally, we do not define marriage at all and allow each his own definition (right or wrong though that definition may be). 

Legally, it seems right to me that all people should have access to the same rights and freedoms (for more fully formed thoughts on this see Should Christians try to bring biblical law into civil society). Contracts to formalise living arrangements - and let's be under no illusions, legally speaking, marriage is not much more than this - should be available to anyone who wants them be they brother and sister, uncle and nephew, or whatever. Civil Partnerships, although currently not available to a whole host of people (a result of the ill-conceived ideas surrounding the legal definition of marriage), would seem to be the natural answer to this. One can have a Civil Partnership, a purely legal contract, without being married. Likewise, those who view marriage as important can have a Civil Partnership as well as being married according to whatever definition they choose to take.

Unfortunately, Christians who are now agitating about the legal definition of marriage somewhat shot themselves in the foot during the debate surrounding the introduction of Civil Partnerships. Had Christians accepted from the outset that Civil Partnership were not marriage, nor equivalent to marriage, the simple solution would be to implement them, available to all, as protection in law alongside marriage for those who deemed it important. Sadly, the fuss kicked up by Christians (see comments by the Christian Institute) make it profoundly unlikely that many will view this as an acceptable solution.

It is a sad reality that many Christians are keen to gain freedoms for themselves and less keen to win them for others. There is irony in that many of those in the dissenting tradition, once a disenfranchised group active in seeking freedoms for many, are now the very people arguing against the freedoms they have been granted. Admittedly, this is far from a phenomenon limited to Christians - it seems to be a very human reaction - however, as Christians we are surely called to be different (again, for more fully formed thoughts on this, see Right-wing Evangelicalism has forgotten its heritage).

I am convinced the answer lies in removing legal definitions of marriage altogether and replacing it with a contract in the form of Civil Partnerships. The only issue that would remain is whether churches would be required to carry out same-sex Civil Partnerships. The sensible answer would seem to be that churches would never carry out any Civil Partnerships, only marriages (in accordance with their own definition - hopefully biblical - of the term). Therefore, civil partnerships - the legal contract - would only be conducted by the State and marriages would be carried out by whomever wished to do so in accordance with their own definitions of what that entails.