Oh dear

Well, maybe the issues around the recent judgement on fostering and Christian views of sexuality aren't so straightforward after all. Or at least, maybe the judgement isn't as clear cut as orginally presented. At least that's the view of some Christians who have studied the judgement see here, and here, for example. Others, meanwhile are still concerned, albeit for different reasons.

Hmm. Where does that all leave us? First, if it is true that Christians, for whatever reason are deliberately reporting this in a sensationalist manner, that is a cause for concern. Second, whatever the facts about this particular case it does highlight the tensions that arise when everything in public life is framed around questions of "rights". Inevitably, someone else's rights will conflict with mine at some point, and if in some way or other, society opts to prefer one set of rights over the other, someone will be unhappy. Maybe Christians have got too used to other people being unhappy for too long. For all that, there are some important questions here about how we bring up children, that the Bishop of Croydon highlights on his blog. Once the dust has settled on this case, I'm sure it won't be long before a similar one comes out of the woodwork.

Fostering tolerance...?

Yesterday's High Court judgement about the suitability of a Christian couple as Foster carers because of their views on homosexuality is a cause for concern. I must admit that there are many of these cases that have made the press recently where, in all honesty, I'm not sure where my sympathies lie. Where, it looks like some Christians have a victim mentality, or seem to do their best to come across as narrow minded with an unhealthy focus on sex.

But this seems different. The ruling seems to suggest that holding orthodox Christian views about sexuality makes you somehow unfit to care for children of a certain age. Now I don't claim any expertise on this, and certainly don't want to jump on any hyper-conservative bandwagon; however this is troubling. As always, some helpful comment at the Jubilee Centre website...espcially interesting as they had previously suggested that the Christian B&B owners who were in the news last month were in the wrong (and I happen to sympathise with them on this). I've no doubt this won't be the last we hear on this.

Objecting....

Its one of the quirks of my family history that both my natural grandfathers were conscientious objectors during World War II. That raises all kinds of questions in itself, which are only compounded by the fact that my paternal grandfather's family were actually of German Jewish background. But for all that I'm strangely proud of this fact - I can remember my Gran talking about being "sent to Coventry" for 6 months by the people she worked with because her husband had refused conscription, and how she kept going into work and doing her job in that period.


The thing that strikes me about conscientious objectors is that, by that stage, they recognised that the public mood had moved on, that war was happening, and was even quite popular; but they refused, on grounds of conscience, to be part of it. It seems to me that, just maybe, there's a model here for our engagement as Christians with certain elements of contemporary society. Take sexual ethics as an example. The simple fact is that as far as the vast majority of people in the UK today, especially those under 40, Christian sexual ethics simply don't make sense. As far as those currently in their teens and early twenties are concerned, the Christian attitude to sex - whether in terms of the value of virginity and marriage, or attitudes to homsexual activity - is a foreign language.

There are all sorts of responses we can adopt to that. Some are valid and helpful, others probably less so. But maybe part, at least, of what we need to be doing is seeing ourselves as concientious objectors. Society as a whole seems to have accepted certain courses of action as valid, and shouting more loudly, or trying to influence the corridoors of power is unlikely to change that much. So maybe we should graciously but determinedly acknowledge that we will follow our consciences after all...and maybe we should be looking to train young people who are serious about following Jesus in a way that they realise that this is the deal.

Who'd have thought....?

Well, so there was an (admittedly failed) attempt at theological discussion at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday, initiated by an MP to the Chief Executive of Barclays, who appeared seriously out of his depth....then continued after a fashion on the website of the Guardian newspaper. Click here for more. Strange days indeed.

Matters of government...

Had a fascinating morning today. Along with 14 0r 15 other local church leaders I went to visit our local MP, Gareth Johnson, at the Houses of Parliament. Visiting Parliament was an experience in itself; so much history in the building, so many good stories. Truly it is an amazing heritage - with the twist that we don't often remember, that it all belongs to us, the British people. And we have the right to visit, to be part of it because it is our parliament.

Having said that, the heritage and the surroundings I think can be a mixed blessing, creating an illusion of significance for the UK which is maybe just not appropriate in the 21st century; and becoming a "bubble" for the politicians at Westminster, remote from everyday life in towns like Dartford.

But the point of the morning today was that our MP wanted to open lines of communication with church leaders - and that has to be a good thing. It will be interesting to see how things develop.

Is Benedict's visit a blessing?

Ok, so this may be controversial....but I've been trying to ponder how to respond to the Pope's current visit to the UK and the media coverage it has excited.

It seems that evangelical Christians veer (publically at least) from an ongoing tendency to Catholic bashing in some circles, fighting the battles of 400 years ago as if they're still top priority today; to an uncritical acceptance that it must be a good thing that the Pope has come to the UK as it will raise the priority of Christian faith.

So far, Benedict's pronouncements about the dangers of secularism have no doubt struck a chord with many Christians of all persuasions, and probably others too. And there is much to commend and admire in the Catholic church's willingness to risk unpopularity in order to uphold traditional Christian teaching. But, for all that I've no wish to doubt the genuine faith in Jesus of many, probably most, Catholics, I can't help but struggle still with many aspects of Catholic teaching - not just the bits about condoms and the role of women, but more fundamenental things like the official (at least) Catholic view of how we're saved, what happens when we break bread, how authority is to be exercised in the Church, and where it comes from, the role of Mary and the saints...to name a few.

So, while my starting position with individual Roman Catholics is to assume that they are my brothers and sisters, on the same side, and while I admire the sense of history and catholicity (note small 'c') implicit in the Catholic (large 'c') church, I have to be honest and say that I struggle with it as an institution. Hence, while I pray that there may be good things coming from the Pope's visit, my fear is that many secular people will identify what they see on their TV screens as what Christianity is all about. And for me as a Pastor, that is a concern. So, back to the original question: I think at best Benedict's visit is a mixed blessing; but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Swiss rules...

Reaction to the referendum result in Switzerland yesterday, banning the building of minarets on mosques has predictably been mixed (see here for the story on the BBC). It all seems a bit unlikely in Switzerland of all places, but, then, I've never been there and wouldn't know. What is interesting is how quick some have been to condemn the Swiss decision who you don't hear saying anything very much about regimes which actively discriminate against and persecute Christians (or if they do say anything it's not reported). On the other hand I fear that there are some Christians in the UK who could be alarmingly envious of what has happened in Switzerland, who seem to live in almost perpetual fear of Islam, and regret that we as Christians aren't accorded more special treatment from the powers that be by virtue of the church's role in Britain's heritage. The question such good folk are asking it seems to me is, "What kind of country we want to live in?". And it's a fair question. But I'm not sure it should be the first question we should ask if we're serious about living as followers of Jesus. Maybe that should be something more like, "What kind of church do we want to be part of?". And the answer, for me at least, would include something about being part of a church that's sufficiently confident in the message of God becoming human with all the vulnerability of a baby - a baby, who grew up to die in a uniquely sacrificial way and ultimately defy death itself; sufficiently confident in this message and its intrinsic power that we don't need state support, aren't always after the government fighting our corner and aren't unduly threatened by any other belief system, however belligerent some of its adherents might be. In other words, we shouldn't be after anyone legislating against other beliefs or even in favour of Christian beliefs, as if that somehow proved something - either about us as believers or about the rest of the society in which we live.

One final thought: can you believe they actually had a referendum on this in Switzerland, when we didn't even get one on the EU constitution? Maybe not much else happens in Swiss politics or something...