Church and state...?

Yesterday evening saw the main 3 parliamentary candidates for Dartford taking part in a hustings organised by the local churches. It was a very good event, well supported, and all the candidates will have done their chances no harm, it seems to me. They all came across as genuine, passionate about the area, committed to public service and prepared to give honest answers to questions even when they knew they might not be saying what their audience wanted to hear. Which I suppose brings it back to a choice about policies, which isn't a bad place to be.











The questions (that had been submitted in advance) were interesting. They focussed for the most part on issues that aren't party political; issues, that you could say cynically, are stereotypical issues of concern for Christians - life issues, conscience issues (wearing a cross to work etc), social disorder issues (alcohol, prostitution). In one way that was disappointing, particularly as there were no questions around global poverty and justice (the, admittedly unscientific, very small sample poll on the WCF website makes this Christians' number 1 concern). The answers were interesting, too, and underlined that Christians' views on many of these issues are simply out of step with the rest of society nowadays. Maybe now, more Christians will realise that, and we can begin to order our lives as an alternative society, rather than trying (unsuccessfully) to impose our way of living on everyone else. That doesn't mean we give up on the rest of society, as if God's ways are only relevant for those who profess to know Him. But it probably means that our primary means of persuasion needs to be the quality of our life together. Now there's a challenge for post-christendom.

Westminster Declaration

Well, I have now added my name to the Westminster Declaration. Despite a few misgivings that I mentioned in my last post, overall I think this gets it about right. It's not about imposing Christian views on anyone else, but on making sure that the right of Christians to hold those views is acknowledged. Have to say that it may not make a great deal of difference in the long run; and that our duty as Christians is to be faithful to our understanding even if it's not widely accepted or understood, and to do so in a gracious and positive way. But, taking the declaration at face value, I felt it was valid to support the other Christians involved in this, even if their agendas might not always be identical to ones I'd feel comfortable with. So why not have a look?

And they're off

So, at long last, the election race has officially begun. After months of thinly disguised campaigning, the masks are off. It will be an intriguing few weeks. No doubt frustrating too, and by the end of it we might very well all have had enough of it. And it means that, if you're as undecided (and generally unimpressed) as me, then we now have 4 weeks to make up our mind.

On a related note, I've just come across the Westminster Declaration. Not sure yet what to make of this. On a first read through it all seems very admirable at face value. And maybe that's the level it should be taken at. But I just have this suspicion about some of these things, that it's another attempt to turn back the clock almost and re-assert Christian influence in a confrontational, "let's defend our rights" kind of way; which I struggle to reconcile with the way of Jesus. But maybe I'm being paranoid in this case. Something else to think about carefully.