Tuesday, 17 December 2013

Mandela : the Authority of the Activist Victim

Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin.  Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need  [Hebrews 4:14-16].

It was a fairly safe prediction that it would not be long before Nelson Mandela would die.  He had been ill for some time.  It's amazing that someone who underwent 27 years of punishment — 18 of those years in a single cell smaller than the kennels of the guard dogs — should live to 95.

What is a surprising coincidence is that he should die shortly before the Sunday in Advent in the year when all the set readings for the day (in churches of all denominations across the whole world) were about hopes for and prophecies of a good and just king who would defend the cause of the poor and bring about seemingly impossible reconciliation.  Not black and white, as in the apartheid struggle, but (in Isaiah) lions and lambs, little children and snakes; or in Paul — and just as unlikely — Gentiles and Jews.

There is a very important Christian message for us in the life of Nelson Mandela, but before I share it with you it's important that we remember something else — something darker.

Lawrence Moore was last year one of our two Moderators of General Assembly.  He grew up in Zimbabwe — what was then Rhodesia — and was a member of the Rhodesian police force; he was personally involved in the repression of black political activists.  He was also at the time a Christian youth leader.  He has written :
It wasn't Mandela's faith that drove and sustained him to do the things he did and to stand so unflinchingly, gloriously, humanly tall against Apartheid and the attempts to crush his humanity. The man who was the architect of forgiveness and reconciliation was not the church leader and man of faith.  Instead, it was the Church and the so-called 'men of faith' who were the architects of Apartheid and who saw Robben Island as an important expression of the will of God for South Africa. 
My church was one of the churches that thought Christians ought to stay out of politics and concentrate on 'making disciples'. If people were 'born again', the argument went, all the evils of South Africa (or do I mean 'regrettable necessities'?) would disappear.
There was just one rather obvious and fatal flaw to this argument that managed to go unnoticed: 98% of the white population of South Africa were card-carrying, twice-a-Sunday church-attending Christians! So how many Christian converts does it take to change the light bulb of Apartheid? More than 98% of the population, obviously …
And here's the killer question for me: how come it was possible for people like me to go on believing there were no substantial changes that I needed to make? How could I live with a clear conscience while Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island and Steve Biko was being murdered in police detention? Why did no-one tell me? My parents didn't. My teachers didn't. My pastors didn't.
But neither did God! I prayed and read my Bible daily. I was a youth leader (I've been preaching since I was 16) and, in all that time, God spoke to me about sex, smoking, bad language, being polite, helping old ladies across the road, not cheating in exams …  but was strangely silent on Apartheid! 
Lawrence Moore, posting on Facebook 6th Dec 2013

If there is a Christian message in the story of Nelson Mandela it includes a word of fiery judgement against a Church that failed to understand its own gospel.  Not just the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, either.  I will not easily forget the Elders Meeting in one of my first churches where I raised the question of moving our bank account from Barclays Bank — the bank which, of all banks at the time, propped up the apartheid régime and gave it the sanctions-busting lifeblood that helped it to stagger on for an extra fifteen destructive years.  I wish I had the confidence that, had our churches and their members been in South Africa, we would have been much different.

Looking to our Bible readings : John the Baptist might have had a fiery judgement to pronounce against the whites of apartheid South Africa : "Who warned you to flee from the judgment to come?"

But maybe the fear of a possible fiery judgement is precisely why South Africa's white Afrikaner leaders could not tolerate the sort of opposition Mandela represented.  John the Baptist's message is of judgment, and the power of revenge.  The one who comes after him is going to be a terrible figure, destroying the unjust in the fire, meting out the revenge of God.

And it's true that the world has seen many leaders who, having won their authority by heroic service in resistance movements, then ruled by revenge — the Ceaucescus of Romania, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Lenin and Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Saddam Hussein — rulers who have been tested in the fires of resistance and then, having overthrown the oppressor, in turn reigned by terror, setting themselves up as Messiahs — saviours and guardians of their nations, with their portraits on every wall, by decree.

That, surely, was the prospect facing white South Africa.  That was why people like Mandela, Sisulu, Thambo were considered so dangerous.  Fear of the fiery possibility of the kind that John the Baptist predicted is what made apartheid hang on.  "There's everything to lose — therefore we must strangle the prophets!"

But according to the gospel story John the Baptist misread God's mind.  The 'one who was to come' was not, it turned out, going to be a warrior of revenge and a self-serving Messiah.

Neither the Apartheid Government nor the Church understood the kind of man who was being imprisoned on Robben Island.  Very few knew anything about Mandela at the time.  No one was allowed to : pictures of him were banned; to photocopy and circulate the speeches he had given was illegal.  He was just 'one of those terrorists'.  They imagined him as a John the Baptist figure, and we know what happened to John the Baptist.  They never imagined that Mandela was more in the mould of the prophet Jesus.

I suppose you could say that one way of understanding the Christian Gospel is that "in God's kingdom, it is the victim that has the authority and the power".

The authority of Jesus as Saviour comes by virtue of the sacrifice he made.  He became for us not only the one true High Priest, but he confirmed that by also becoming the sacrifice that the High Priest offers.  That execution for us — in God's name, remember — is what makes Jesus alone worthy and gives him supreme authority in our lives.

Who, in South Africa of 1989, had the authority to transform the situation?  Who could command respect from the majority black population?  Who but someone who had declared his willingness to die if that's what it would take to overthrow apartheid, and who said this fully expecting to be hanged; who then suffered most grievously at the hands of the Apartheid establishment.  Somehow, unlike many of his compatriots, he survived with his life. That's where his authority and respect amongst the black population came from — that, and his complete inflexibility, determination in the cause of justice.  This was a man who would never sell out, accept the thirty pieces of silver from the white oppressor.

No other black leader — who had survived, that is — had the status of victim that Nelson Mandela had.  Therefore only he had the authority to forgive the oppressors.  A politician can't forgive people who have killed and oppressed others.  How could they?  Only a politician who has himself been a prime victim has such authority.

But how, on the other hand, did Mandela come to win the confidence of F.W.de Klerk, the State President?  The story reads like something straight out of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.  Mandela's relationship with his jailers and prison governors — his principled position which never crossed into personal hatred, and led him to have concern for his jailers, ask after their families and so on — must have gradually permeated up the chain and into the highest places : "This may be a man we can do business with.  This may be a man who might have what it takes to take South Africa" — which was by then crumbling economically and descending into chaos — "into a different future".  And so he was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison where secret talks could take place.

To lead a nation in such a way that the oppressors not only have a place in it but actually have pride and hope in their radically changed nation is remarkable and inspirational.  In Mandela we see a combination of

  • authority that comes through personal suffering
  • refusal to compromise with injustice
  • determination that the truth will not be covered up but told in all its horror, in order that reconciliation may not be 'pouring oil on troubled waters' only for it to blow up again.  Reconciliation must be based on the truth, and founded on repentance and forgiveness, not revenge.
  • recognition that 'we are not struggling against human beings but against the principalities and powers' (and therefore I can be gracious towards my captors — 'forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do')

. . . these are all things that are absolutely fundamental to the Christian understanding of how God brings salvation to a broken world.  If only the present leaders of the State of Israel would take heed.  Their predecessors had the authority, but squandered it.

Nelson Mandela would have been the first to say he was not God's chosen Messiah, but his life reflected that of Jesus and vindicates Jesus's way as the true way of salvation.  He is rightly something of a messiah figure to South Africans.

Now that he is gone there is a renewed anxiety in the air.  While he was alive it would have been difficult to adopt policies that he would have hated.  Is there anyone else of his stature to remain as a witness that the way of truth, justice, reconciliation and forgiveness is the most powerful way?  Will whites be sleeping soundly in their beds?  Or will the voice of the Baptist be heard once more out in the desert, warning of fiery vengeance?  Do any future leaders have the authority that comes from being victims, and thus have the authority to forgive?  I don't know.

Maybe now the task of witnessing to the 'Jesus Way' will go back to where it should have been in the first place — the Church in South Africa.  We must pray for the Church and Nation of South Africa that the period of mourning for Nelson Mandela may not be a lament for an era that is now gone — an era of truth and reconciliation — but that it will be a real affirmation of the way forward too.

Friday, 15 November 2013

Calling all kamikaze pedestrians

a short article commissioned by the Oxford Mail on a topic of local interest :

Gazing out of his study window across Southampton Water, the great 18th century hymnwriter Isaac Watts dreamed he was looking across the River Jordan to the Promised Land beyond, and wrote a hymn with these words :

Timorous mortals start and shrink
to cross this narrow sea
and linger shivering on the brink
and fear to launch away

(The Jordan River is often used as a metaphor for death — he’s writing about dying).

Gazing out of my church window across the A40 to the ‘promised land’ of Barton beyond, I watch elderly people and schoolchildren timing their run across the dual carriageway and admire their courage.

When the Israelites eventually came to cross the River Jordan, the priests carrying the ‘ark of the covenant’ (containing Moses’s famous law tablets) went ahead, and as soon as they dipped their feet in the water, the flooding river stopped flowing and the water piled up giving them all a safe crossing.

Call me a heretic, but I reckon a set of traffic lights to enable pedestrians to cross in safety would do the job more reliably than a church minister with a Bible in his hand marching across.

Unfortunately, it seems that in order to get the crossing we need, we’ll need some much ‘better’ casualty statistics to raise it up the County's priority list.  A few deaths and serious injuries should do the job.  Calling all kamikaze pedestrians (I’m a cyclist — I know you’re out there) — don’t be ‘timorous’!

Friday, 18 October 2013

Unlocking others' love in loneliness

AgeUK are running a project in Risinghurst tackling loneliness and isolation, especially of elderly people. Part of the difficulty is their invisibility. Some may have family living at great distance who visit occasionally, but be so rarely seen by their neighbours that they could have a serious accident and no-one notice for days. Some have no family at all. Isolated people can slip through the net of Health and Social Services systems. Every year the City Council finds itself providing the funerals and dealing with the estates of ten people who had no-one. Few actively choose the hermit’s life. Most suffer from their isolation; some are trapped and crushed by it. “It is not good for man to be alone”, says God after creating Adam. It’s not necessary.

We have a popular hymn which begins and ends with : Brother, sister, let me serve you, Let me be as Christ to you. Pray that I may have the grace to let you be my servant too.

When I was a hospital porter there were those whom it was a pleasure to help. They smiled through the indignities and accepted help gracefully — they made it worth going to work despite the rubbish wages. It was ‘win-win’ for both of us. Others’ pride meant they resented needing help, so were either aggressive and demanding or just sullen.

There are so many people and agencies willing to help (churches included), and so many would-be-good neighbours — not self-righteous ‘do-gooders’ but people who simply believe in helping others as they themselves may one day need helping.

A key Christian insight is that our vulnerability and distress can unlock love in others. We're not a burden — if we're humble enough to let others help.

Tuesday, 16 July 2013

Cactus in a hostile environment: our toxic political culture

for Collinwood Road URC, July 14th 2013

25 An expert in the Law of Moses stood up and asked Jesus a question to see what he would say. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to have eternal life?”  26 Jesus answered, “What is written in the Scriptures? How do you understand them?”
27 The man replied, “The Scriptures say, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.’ They also say, ‘Love your neighbours as much as you love yourself.’”
28 Jesus said, “You have given the right answer. If you do this, you will have eternal life.”  29 But the man wanted to show that he knew what he was talking about. So he asked Jesus, “Who are my neighbours?”
30 Jesus replied:
As a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, robbers attacked him and grabbed everything he had. They beat him up and ran off, leaving him half dead.
31 A priest happened to be going down the same road. But when he saw the man, he walked by on the other side. 32 Later a temple helper came to the same place. But when he saw the man who had been beaten up, he also went by on the other side.
33 A man from Samaria then came traveling along that road. When he saw the man, he felt sorry for him 34 and went over to him. He treated his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put him on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. 35 The next morning he gave the innkeeper two silver coins and said, “Please take care of the man. If you spend more than this on him, I will pay you when I return.”
36 Then Jesus asked, “Which one of these three people was a real neighbour to the man who was beaten up by robbers?”
37 The teacher answered, “The one who showed pity.”
Jesus said, “Go and do the same!”
(Luke 10 : 25 - 37)

The linking of these two commandments (to love God and love neighbour) is critical : one deals with the ‘internal’ aspect of religious faith — loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength — what’s going on inside you that noone can see.  The second deals with how that cashes out in the world : how someone on the path to eternal life behaves.  What faith looks like in practice.

And the question is : where is the boundary between the neighbour and the foreigner to whom you owe no obligation?  Understand this : in Jesus’s Judæa, ‘neighbour’ was understood very clearly to mean ‘fellow-citizen’, ‘fellow-countryman’.

Now we might scoff at that : “obviously, my ‘neighbour’ is every other human being in the world”.

It‘s absolutely not obvious at all.  How is it ‘obvious’?  As I look at British society at the moment what is very obvious is that there are limits to our compassion.  We are being taught it persistently and insidiously by our politicians and the media.

Two examples :

You will hear politicians regularly using the phrase “hard-working ordinary people” or suchlike.  These are the people — ordinary people like you and me (we’re meant to understand) — whom they are there to serve.  They’re on our side.

Be very wary.  What they mean is that the people they are there to serve are the ones who are working, not the ones that aren’t working.  It’s a phrase carefully designed to drive a wedge between those who have work and those who don’t.  The United Reformed Church, in conjunction with the Church of Scotland, the Methodist and Baptist Churches have publicly demanded that our leaders cease demonising and lying about (yes, they’ve used that word) unemployed people.  Because (to take just one example) the majority of unemployed people are only out of work for a few weeks — less than a fifth of unemployed people have been out of work for more than two years (and some of those have already found jobs and are waiting to start.  When unemployed figures rise, what it means is the average time it takes a person to find another job has increased, so more people are unemployed at any one time — but it’s not the same people otherwise the long-term unemployed figures would be rising, and they’re not.  They’re moving in and out of work all the time.  So we’re being invited to lose compassion for anyone who isn’t in a steady job.  Distance ourselves from those on the edge of the economy.  We’re being taught to believe that unemployed people — even though most unemployed people actually work — are not our ‘neighbours’, we have no obligation to them.  That’s what we’re being ‘groomed’ to believe.  Welfare benefits become undeserved charity.

My second example is the insidious way that a wall is being constructed between permanent UK residents and so-called ‘immigrants’, and especially ‘illegal immigrants’.  Now, like ‘unemployed’, ‘illegal immigrants’ is a slippery term.  For instance, it includes 147,000 asylum applications dating back to the early 1990s — that’s nearly 20 years in some cases — which are still stranded in the Home Office bureaucracy. The government’s own Chief Inspector reported :
Such was the inefficiency of this operation that at one point over 150 boxes of post, including correspondence from applicants, MPs and their legal representatives lay unopened in a room in Liverpool.
(Report by Independent Chief Inspector of Borders & Immigration John Vine, Nov 22, 2012)

That is the equivalent of the population of the City of Oxford unable to provide residency papers because their applications, submitted between six and twenty years ago, have not been dealt with.

‘Who is my neighbour?’

Well, it’s not those 147,000 people, that’s for sure.  It was revealed yesterday that the prime minister set up a cabinet working party called the ‘Hostile Environment Working Party’ whose job is to make life as miserable and difficult for unwanted immigrants as possible, to break up their families and drive them into destitution, and a new swathe of laws on the statute book is designed to do just this.  These people are being absolutely redefined as ‘not neighbours’ — people to whom we have no obligation whatsoever.

In fact it’s the very opposite : the obligation on employers, landlords and doctors will be to sack them, evict them and deny them medical treatment.  I’m not joking : that is exactly what the new laws will require.  And I imagine the prime minister's ‘Hostile Environment Working Party’ also has a media consultant on it to make sure that the stereotyping, demonising messages are filtered into the media.  We’re being groomed to believe this abuse is acceptable, normal, “common sense, really”.

And this new ‘them and us’ mood is catching on.  Read the comments that people post on the websites and you’ll find the spite-filled, poisonous messages you read there deeply alarming — at least, I do.  We have our own spiritual work cut out if we’re to avoid our minds being poisoned — it’s insidious.

‘Who is my neighbour?’ asks the legal expert of Jesus, to test his grasp of the law.  Maybe it was a genuine question, not a trick question.  Perhaps he genuinely wants to know how the Law of Moses defines ‘neighbour’.  Read Deuteronomy — it’s not straightforward.  The answer he gets is not what he expects.

Jesus twists it back as a question about what it means for you to be ‘neighbourly’.  And instead of generalising, he pulls it down to a story of a particular incident.

Why does he do that?

Because it’s so easy to stereotype and generalise, isn’t it?  It’s impossible — it’s downright dangerous — to generalise about unemployed people and immigrants because every story’s different, as I’ve explained.  You couldn’t have a separate law for every particular situation.  But lawyers have to generalise in order to make their laws, don’t they?  Law is a blunt instrument, and in the wrong hands becomes a ‘weapon of mass destruction’, as these new laws will.

So instead of giving a legal opinion, Jesus gives a story of particular people, and the picture he paints of the Samaritan is not the stereotype — because, after all, there is no stereotype Samaritan. He and his disciples have just passed through Samaria : they’ve been welcomed in some people’s houses, not in others. This Samaritan is a man of compassion, who understands that compassion doesn’t stop at the borders of Samaria.  Even though the man who’s been mugged might despise him (were he conscious) the Samaritan helps him anyway.  In his hour of need, and whilst not in a state to choose who will or won’t help him, the victim depends for his life on the Samaritan, while his fellow-countrymen abandon him.

So Jesus puts the lawyer (the politician — for in his day, the two were not far from being the same thing) in a situation where he must acknowledge that maybe, one day, he may desperately need help from a Samaritan — “so, my friend, be very careful before you go writing laws that drive a wedge between Samaritans and us”.

The MP who, because she was so appalled by it, leaked the information about the ‘Hostile Environment Working Party’, was not just any MP. Until recently she was government Minister for Children and Families. She will no doubt pay a high price for her ‘outing’ of what’s going on.  Unless a lot of things change quickly in our toxic political culture she is (as my Australian relatives would say) ‘cactus’.  She’s ‘cactus’ . . out on her own in a hostile environment, with noone wanting to get too close to her.

As happened, eventually, of course, to Jesus.  I wouldn’t push the parable too far.  Sarah Teather will continue to be very well paid, and though on the front benches she may be ‘cactus’, she'll find plenty of friends outside a House of Commons that’s so intent on creating a ‘hostile environment’.  Jesus’s world was very much more violent and chaotic, and the price he paid for his message of neighbourliness was total.

My task this morning, of course, is not just to deliver social comment (even if it does come straight from the Gospel reading) but to proclaim The Gospel — ‘Good News’.  The thing is, the message of this text isn’t necessarily Good News.  It offers no promise of life to those who swallow the poisonous message that we owe no obligation to people without work or to people who can’t produce the appropriate documentation to appease the gods of the Home Office.  There is no eternal life — it says — for these people, though fortunately there is always the opportunity for repentance.  ‘Repent — and believe the Good News’.

But it is ‘Good News’ to the victims of these laws — “despite what they say, you are valuable to God; you are welcome in the Christian community”.  And our response to the Gospel must be to live that welcome, and not cooperate with systems that limit our neighbourliness and replace it with legally-sanctioned abuse.

The world — the ‘hostile environment’ which our smiley Prime Minister has set up a Working Party to create — will do its worst.  Those who actually believe in loving ‘the neighbours they have from God’ (as we sang in our hymn) as they find them, in all their variety — not as the stereotypes by which others full of fear want to portray them — may find themselves unpopular with the majority.  But the love and acceptance of the outcast shown by Jesus is invincible even in death.  The resurrection means many things, but amongst them is the conviction that cactus can survive and multiply in the desert.

Statistics are taken from the Office of National Statistics latest reports.  The paper referred to is the Joint Public Issues Group's 2013 paper The Lies We Tell Ourselves : comfortable myths about poverty

Monday, 1 July 2013

A complete philosophy of religion in 1000 words

From time to time, I find myself conducting a service with a lot of people who have no church or religious background at all, and very little knowledge of Christian belief.  Rather than say creeds that are full of jargon, I try to open up the world of Christian thinking about ‘life, the Universe and everything’ in as few carefully chosen words as I can.  Here’s the most recent attempt — slightly expanded.

When we talk about ‘God’ (capital ‘G’) we are not talking about something that may or may not be real, something that may or may not ‘exist’.  Indeed, to talk about God ‘existing’ doesn't quite make sense.  God is the word we use for the reason why anything ‘exists’ at all.  God is whatever causes reality as we know it.

So to say ‘there is no God’ is either to say ‘there is no Reality’ (but that would be stupid — wouldn’t it?) or ‘Reality has no cause’ (which seems a bit weird), or ‘even if Reality did once have a cause we will never know what that was so there’s no point talking about it’.  If that works for you, fine, but me, I’m interested in what Reality’s like so I can work out how to live my life — and die my death.  It seems more likely to me that whatever was the first cause of Reality is still holding existence in being, and will be at the end of the Universe (if there is one).

One thing we can definitely say about God — if we’re to use the word properly — is that God cannot (by definition) be a product of our imaginations any more than reality is a product of our imaginations (but see footnote).  Why? Because to worship something that our minds have conjured up or imagined is what the ancients called ‘idolatry’ — worshipping something you’ve ‘made’ — and that was absolutely forbidden.  If we’re worshipping a product of our imaginations, then by definition we’re not worshipping God but something else (and the Bible suggests that’s a dangerous thing to do).

In fact, because we’re human, we can only ever worship a product of our imaginations, but we need to recognise that that’s what we’re doing and keep ourselves continually on the alert for signs of false-god-worship.  (That’s why the first Christians were persecuted for being ‘atheists’.  They wouldn’t acknowledge the Roman emperor as one of the gods, which was nonsensical to a lot of people, quite apart from being traitorous.)

I suppose you could say, though, that whatever God is like, we and all of reality are a product of God’s imagination!

The key question, then, is not whether God ‘exists’ or not.  That is a meaningless question.  It’s rather like a fish debating whether water exists.  The question is — what is God like?  What is Reality like?  Here are some possibilities :

  • Is there only one Reality or many, for instance?  Is there a ‘this world’, and ‘another (spiritual or ideal) world’?  (Groups that believed that caused the early Christians a lot of trouble, and were eventually ejected from the Church).  The central affirmation shared by Jews, Christians and Muslims is, “Hear, O Israel : the Lord your God, the Lord is One”
  • Is Reality basically mechanical, and only understandable in terms of physics theory? (Bear in mind that physicists are having trouble finding a single set of theories that make sense of the whole Universe).  Are human beings the only point at which the Universe has feelings, and are those feelings just meaningless processes going on in our brains?
  • Is the Universe basically human-friendly or is it out to kill us unless we stop it?  Should we just accept whatever comes, or should we ‘barter’ with God, try to outmanœuvre the workings of the Universe?
  • Does everything in the Universe sort of hang together in a balanced way, making sense; or is the Universe a chaos of different forces competing with each other, some horrible, some beautiful, with no overall purpose?

For most of human history, religion has probably been based on the last of these beliefs : that it’s chaos out there — that there are many competing ‘invisible forces’.  That the gods are cruel and fickle, always at war with one another and not basically interested in human beings.  And that we have to attract their attention with our rituals and buy them off with sacrifices.  (That doesn’t just apply to ancient civilisations.  The same sort of religion, for instance, is practised by those who think The Free Market  is some unchallengeable principle that must be appeased if society is to flourish — appeased with ‘human sacrifices’ if necessary.  It’s just that the language is different).

The Jews who later became known as Christians, however, had what they called a ‘gospel’ — meaning ‘Good News’ — which, they claimed, rendered this sort of religion redundant.

This Good News is there throughout the Bible, but it is revealed most clearly in the shape of a human being — Jesus of Nazareth.  Jesus’s followers came to believe that in Jesus they were seeing what God is like.  (That is to say, what the one Reality is like, deep down.)

The Good News is that ‘God is One’ and ‘God is Love’.

This doesn’t sound very ‘news’, does it?  It sounds like a statement of the obvious.  Of course ‘God is love’!

Of course?  There’s absolutely no ‘of course’ about it!  When you look at Reality, where’s the evidence?  It’s a crazy claim to make — not least by people whose holy prophet was tortured to death — and the early Christians were understandably ridiculed for it.  Reality, surely, is harsh, chaotic?  ‘Life’s a bitch, then you die’.  Better burn a pinch of incense on an altar to ward the gods off, in the hope that they’ll be nice to us — or at least leave us alone.  Where’s the evidence that ‘God is love’?

The evidence is Jesus.  That is the reason why Christians dare to claim that the deepest Reality loves us.  How it is that Jesus is ‘evidence’ is another story.

footnote : Since we can only ever experience reality in our minds I suppose you could say reality itself is ‘imaginary’.  Whilst that might keep us humble by reminding us that everything is to some extent subjective — that is, that every person experiences and interprets reality differently — I'm not sure quite how far that gets us.  It’s quite good at challenging dominating single ideologies, but its danger is that we end up imagining that only ‘objective’ science can say anything sensible about reality, which is pretty much what we’ve ended up doing.

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Letter to MP on Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Having chewed through the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill yesterday, I read through the Hansard transcript of Tuesday's Parliamentary debate. The following is the letter I have written to my MP this morning as a result :

I see that you abstained at the second reading of this Bill on Tuesday. Although I am a strong supporter of the idea that same-sex couples should be able to claim the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples, I think I might have been tempted to do the same.

I am writing to ask for your advice and help as the Bill enters its revising phase. I don't know whom I should be writing to at this point. Is the matter now out of your hands until it returns for its third reading, or are you able to have any input to committee considerations?

Hugh Robertson, in his brief summing up at the end of the debate, asserted that
This Bill simply allows people to get married who are currently excluded from doing so purely because they are of the same sex.
If that were true, I would have little difficulty with it, but it isn't true. Schedule 4 Part 3 includes a couple of key exemptions from existing marriage law — exemptions which, to my mind, have the effect of changing the whole understanding of what marriage is (at least, for same-sex couples). I find it hard to imagine why any same-sex couples would object if this small part of the bill were struck out. I can't understand why it has been inserted in the first place.

The exemptions concern grounds for annulment and divorce on the grounds of non-consummation and adultery respectively. By removing adultery as grounds for divorce (only for same-sex couples, not heterosexual couples) the Bill is effectively an Adulterer's Charter, and undermines same-sex marriage.

Eight MPs pointed to this mysterious deficiency, but Hugh Robertson had either not heard or chose to ignore the point : Stewart Jackson, Craig Whittaker, Jim Dobbin, Nadine Dorries, Helen Goodman, Fiona Bruce, David Burrowes and Geraint Davies. Stewart Jackson quoted the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey on this point, so we can be fairly sure Schedule 4 Part 3 will get a tough scrutiny in the House of Lords. Maria Miller's reply was quite obtuse, arguing that adultery would be considered 'unreasonable behaviour' and so effectively comes under that heading.

But why should adultery be automatically regarded as 'unreasonable behaviour' as she assumes? She seemed to be making the assumption that sexual relations outside the marriage would be unreasonable — but in that case, why not say so?

There is something going on here, and my view is that what is going on is the beginning of the removal of sexual relations from the concept of marriage altogether.

I do not subscribe to the view that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation (as a number of speakers argued). I do believe, however, that marriage law is one of the key ways in which we locate (what we might better call) 'one-to-one erotic relationships' within British society. The laws of marriage provide the model for the expression of erotic relationships, steering them towards long-term, committed, loving relationships. Even if this ideal is often observed in the breach, I reckon that the vast majority of people accept that marriage (one sexual partner for life, 'forsaking all others') is the goal. We Britons may more commonly practice serial monogamy; young people may (as young people always have) feel the need to practice erotic relationships without commitment before finding a life partner; many couples choose not to formalise their marriage legally; others, through human weakness, fail to live up to the ideal, but I see little evidence of interest in polygamy or 'open marriage'. Marriage, as a sexual relationship 'forsaking all others', is clearly the model, and it is not right that LGBT people should be excluded from it. I could add the importance of marriage as providing a secure and stable environment for the raising of children. Although at one time I was a little queasy about children being raised in a same-sex household, I have come to realise that this was an incoherent position to take, given that I did not see anything intrinsically wrong with same-sex relationships per se.

One possible reason for this peculiar attempt, in Schedule 4, to remove sex itself from marriage is that the drafters of the Bill failed to recognise the nature and importance of erotic love in human relationships. The debate seemed to veer between (on the one hand) sex as leading to childbirth and (one the other) loving and caring for your partner. But one-to-one erotic behaviour is enormously important to human beings. In order to avoid a lot of confusion, misunderstanding and hurt (in people's lives, but also in the divorce courts) it needs to be located in a widely-understood social and legal framework, and the vast majority would agree that marriage is that model framework — even if not all choose to formalise it for themselves, and even if not all agree that same-sex couples belong in that framework (as I do).

I append a short paper about the blessings and dangers of one-to-one erotic behaviour, describing why it should be located within a social structure of committed loving relationships 'forsaking all others' (this being an edited-down version of yesterday's blog).

Despite the worthy sentiments from many speakers avowing their desire to affirm loving — and implicitly, sexual — same-sex relationships, that is precisely what the Bill doesn't do! I wish it did, so that it was affirming the erotic component of same-sex relationships and not pretending they're not there. It is simply done, by striking out Schedule 4 Part 3, and I can see no earthly reason why that should not be done during the revising phase. How can I best lobby for this to happen?

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

An Adulterer's Charter?

I've just (very belatedly) read through the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill to see what it does and doesn't say. I've had a bit of a surprise, and have come to the belated conclusion that it has one fundamental flaw : it is an adulterer's charter.

The heart of it, of course, is that it defines the legal contract of 'marriage' in existing legislation to include couples of the same sex. Most of it is then taken up with tidying up possible areas of confusion around pension entitlements, around arrangements for contracting same-sex marriages overseas (e.g. whilst on service with the armed forces or in British consulates). It sets down in which buildings, and under what conditions, same-sex marriages can be registered — it excludes the Church of England and does not impose a requirement that religious organisations should conduct such marriages against their wishes.

[What is different about the C of E is that it is a state church and therefore, unlike other churches, cannot refuse to marry any couple so long as one of them lives in the parish. Without this clause, the local vicar would be obliged to marry same-sex couples. It might have been possible to create legislation that got round this difficulty, but whilst the C of E is established, it would be difficult.]

It includes a useful and long-overdue section that tidies up a gap in existing law concerning married people who undergo an officially-recognised sex change. Under existing law, if they were to remain married to their partner they have to go through an annulment and then re-recognition (presumably as civil partners).

The law is — or at least was until this Bill — clear that marriage is an exclusive relationship in a sexual sense. It's fine for me, as a married person, to have a close relationship with someone other than my partner, but if I have sex with them I have crossed a line and opened myself up to breach of the marriage contract. Having sexual relations outside a marriage relationship is — or was until this Bill — grounds for divorce. But for some reason I don't understand, it would not be grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage.

I'm sure that, back in the past, this prohibition of adultery was all connected with the importance of knowing whose children were whose — which children were entitled to maintenance by whom and whose estate they were entitled to inherit. You couldn't allow married people to go off and produce children outside the marriage without taking full responsibility for the consequences, and certainly not if it was done without the full consent — or even knowledge — of their partner. It would represent a massive breach of trust, and be a recipe for social chaos in which the most vulnerable — the children — stood to suffer most. The law is weighted such that if a married woman has a baby the legal presumption is that it is a child of the marriage, and the husband therefore has a duty of care towards it. In an era when men were seen as the 'breadwinners' I guess that makes sense for the protection of the child — but of course it creates a sense of the married woman being her husband's 'possession', to be jealously guarded.

In these days of easy contraception the risks of illegitimate children are much less, of course, and the State has let irresponsible parents (usually fathers) off the hook by providing some support for the upkeep of the child of an unmarried mother through the benefit system.

According to this Bill, if a partner in a same-sex marriage commits adultery with a member of the opposite sex it is still grounds for divorce, but not if they take up a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex. It seems odd to me for same-sex marriages to be given this exemption. Where's the equality here? Surely marriage, whether same-sex or not, is (in terms of erotic one-to-one behaviour) "to the exclusion of all others". Why should the taking of erotic pleasure in a one-to-one relationship with someone outside the married relationship without the knowledge or permission of the married partner not be considered an equal breach of trust, and grounds for legal complaint?

The fact that two people of the same sex cannot between them conceive a child is not deemed to prevent them being married. I agree with that, and support same-sex marriage, because the purpose of erotic behaviour is not only for conceiving children. So why should an adulterous same-sex relationship (that equally cannot produce children) not be considered a breach of that marriage contract?

If a same-sex marriage is not exclusive in terms of sexual behaviour, in what sense is it a marriage? There is an inconsistency here. In this sense, the Bill does represent a 'watering-down' of marriage, even an undermining of it, because it is saying that a supposedly equal same-sex marriage is not required to 'exclude all others' in a sexual sense. If it denies a wronged partner redress in the courts, it's a legalisation of adultery, surely?

My argument is not from tradition, custom or culture. It is rooted in an understanding of the place of erotic love in human nature and human society, particularly from a Christian perspective. One of my primary reasons for supporting same-sex marriage — indeed, for believing that it is long overdue — is that I believe 'one-to-one erotic behaviour' is best expressed, and for the sake of a healthy society should be confined to, married relationships 'to the exclusion of all others'. Even if many people choose to form exclusive one-to-one sexual relationships without making a formal legal commitment, and if many people fail to live up to the ideal, the legal definition of marriage as being 'to the exclusion of all others' is still generally understood as the model. And since it clearly doesn't mean 'not having any relationships of any sort with anyone else', it clearly means 'exclusive sexual relationship'. In Britain we may go in for serial monogamy, but we generally frown on polygamy. I agree that marriage is not intrinsically heterosexual and that it is not exclusively about procreation, and I imagined that it is because they resented being excluded from this committed, sexually exclusive partnership model — marriage — that many gay and lesbian couples want to see this Bill succeed.

But I do believe that sexual relations are at the heart of the marriage model. They're being short-changed -- we all are. Marriage (whether homo- or hetereosexual) is the best model because of the nature of erotic love.

The purest form of love — what the Christians call 'agape' love — is totally selfless. Its only concern is the welfare of the other. At its extreme, it is 'love your enemies'. If it is done for selfish reasons it ceases to be 'pure love' in this sense.

Erotic love, however, is a different sort of love — although it does not exclude agape love (as some suggest). In fact, the two go very well together. Unlike 'agape' love, the giving of erotic pleasure typically involves the receiving of it, too. One-to-one erotic behaviour can therefore be a very powerful way of strengthening the bond between two people. In Christian terms I would argue that this, rather than the making of babies, is its primary purpose. The fact that erotic behaviour produces a personal erotic 'reward' is one of its great blessings, because it gives people who might otherwise (in the busyness of life) drift apart a motive to get 'up front and personal' and renew their relationship erotically. The sex drive can drive us together — it is a bonding drive.

The Bill, however, doesn't afford it any value or relevance -- it strikes out 'non-consummation' as grounds for annulment. This, and the exemption for same-sex adultery cuts directly across this purpose of marriage (see Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill -- Schedule 4 Part 3, 'Divorce').

By constraining erotic urges within an exclusive committed relationship, the marriage model of relationship 'channels' sexual energy to hold couples together. By saying officially that the expression of that bonding drive outside the partnership need be no impediment to the relationship, the Bill is effectively saying that marriage has nothing to do with sexual relations at all. To be consistent, the Marriage Act needs to be amended to remove adultery or non-consummation as grounds for divorce/annulment in heterosexual marriages too, thereby separating legal partnerships from sexual behaviour altogether. Only then will it be 'Equal Love' — but will it be 'love' of the sort most people think this debate is about? Will it be 'marriage' as most people — including those (like me) who support same-sex marriage — understand it?

The fact that one-to-one erotic behaviour produces a personal erotic 'reward' is also its danger, of course. It can so easily become a selfish act. In its most distorted form it becomes the using of another person for sexual purposes. If one of the purposes of marriage is to channel people's sexual urges into forging enduring partnerships that can form strong building blocks for society, then the complementary purpose is that of protecting society from the dangers of abusive (that is, purely selfish and exploitative) sexual behaviour. I would say that indulging in sexual behaviour outside of a committed relationship (without the partner's knowledge or agreement) is at the least selfish behaviour, in breach of trust. To exempt partners in a same-sex marriage from this constraint is effectively to say 'it was never a marriage in the first place'.

As I have said, the actual erotic preferences of the couples involved are completely irrelevant to this. Society's laws only need to reach into that private domain where the protection of individuals (other partner or children) from abuse by one of the partners has become an issue.

So the Bill is effectively an adulterer's charter for some, and if it were consistent it would be an adulterer's charter for all. It effectively 'desexualises' marriage. It deals with the same-sex issue by running away from it. I didn't realise this, and I'm sure most people don't. Far from affirming the sexual nature of same-sex relationships, it denies the significance of erotic behaviour in human relationships altogether as irrelevant. That is a recipe for a lot of confusion, misunderstanding and hurt. It would be quite simple to correct this fundamental flaw : just remove the same-sex adultery exemption (Schedule 4, Part 3, 'Divorce'). Then we might have 'Equal Love'.