So we finally have a government ...

I love the tradition of the speech on the steps of Downing street. Even coming at the end of probably the most exciting week of politics I've ever seen, Tuesday's two examples were no anticlimax. I found both Gordon Brown's and David Cameron's speeches quite moving.

Of course the best speech of this sort ever delivered came from Jesus (Luke 4:16-21):

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour."

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

This is the vision against which I measure every government, and every time I see a new prime minister speak outside that shiny black door I am looking to see to what extent their policies and values match with what Jesus said at the start of his ministry. Of course, none of them ever meet the mark. But sometimes, as this week, I find echoes of Jesus' words, they never meet the mark; but sometimes, as this week, there are echoes every time I am disappointed, but sometimes there are the odd parallels, and this week was no exception.

What was particularly interesting this time, though, was that the speech was more than just David Cameron's agenda for the country; it contained references to things that until a week ago were anathema to most of his party and clearly came from his Lib Dem coalition partners.

And that's the great thing about coalition government. After days of negotiations - and oh, how I'd have loved to have been able to watch those 24/7 on the TV - the two parties have put together a package that cuts out the extremes of both sides in the aim of being more broadly palatable. Out go the inheritance tax cut (hoorah!) and the scrapping of Trident (shame). For once we can see how two groups of people with apparently radically different views can put aside their differences and come up with a common agenda. Are you watching, Israel and Palestine?

Like most people, I suspect, I find this isn't the government I really wanted; but neither is it the government I most feared. And perhaps that is more important.

I Went To Vote

I went to vote yesterday. I took my son with me, partly because the polling station was at his school, but also because I wanted him to see me doing it because it’s important.

Everything I heard on the radio suggested that we citizens have become so thoroughly disenfranchised with the system, what with all the scandal over MP’s expenses etc, that none of us would bother.

And in the evening, since it was sunny and my son was at Beavers at church, which was also being used as a polling station, I took a book and sat on the church steps and read, and watched the people coming and going.

What I saw was a beautiful thing. Couples walking along hand-in-hand clutching their polling cards. Whole families with young children coming out together. Fathers and sons heading off to vote together for the first time. Groups of young people voting with their friends. People of all sorts, all colours, all ages. All of them smiling, all of them proud to be part of something. Just like me.

So whatever you read this morning in the media, a media that seems to be escalating its war against the politicians to ever more extreme levels, don’t believe a word of it. Real people are still going out, quietly, in their millions, to vote for a system that they not only believe in but are fiercely proud of.

And deep in the bowels of Westminster, of Brussels, of our councils, among the spin doctors, the media hacks, and the moat-cleaning duck-island building spivs, there are still people who are in public office for no other reason than that the want to help run the country and make it a better place. Long may they continue.

40

Since getting up at 2am to watch the US election results, I've been strongly reminded of Psalm 40:

I waited patiently for the LORD; he turned to me and heard my cry.
He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire;
he set my feet on a rock and gave me a firm place to stand.
He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God.
Many will see and fear and put their trust in the LORD.
Blessed is the man who makes the LORD his trust,
who does not look to the proud, to those who turn aside to false gods.
Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done.
The things you planned for us no one can recount to you;
were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare.

In fact I've been seized by the desire to listen to U2's version of that repeatedly. If you look back at what I wrote this time four years ago you'll probably understand why.

Election Day

So, US election today.

I read in all the media that the Republican party are relying on evangelical Christians to get the vote out for their candidate.

Well, don't believe everything you see on the news. I am an evangelical, bible-believing Christian myself, and I urge anyone out there to go out and vote for Obama.

Jesus' heart is with the poor, the outcast, the alien. I pray that America's Evangelical Christians (and everyone else) will think about that as they vote today.

Harry Potter and the Political Donation

I saw in the news recently (ish ... ok, I’m getting behind) that JK Rowling has donated a million pounds to the Labour party. More interestingly, she explained why here. I quote in full:

"I believe that poor and vulnerable families will fare much better under the Labour Party than they would under a Cameron-led Conservative Party. Gordon Brown has consistently prioritised and introduced measures that will save as many children as possible from a life lacking in opportunity or choice. The Labour government has reversed the long-term trend in child poverty, and is one of the leading EU countries in combating child poverty. David Cameron's promise of tax perks for the married, on the other hand, is reminiscent of the Conservative government I experienced as a lone parent. It sends the message that the Conservatives still believe a childless, dual-income, but married couple is more deserving of a financial pat on the head than those struggling, as I once was, to keep their families afloat in difficult times."

There was a time when I had real questions about the policies which JKR highlights. As a Christian, I have pretty strong views on the value of marriage. I believe (as does anyone who looks at the evidence) that a proper marriage (which means a man and a woman) is the best place to conceive and bring up children. I also fully believe in the biblical view that divorce is pretty much never the right thing (not least because that’s what Jesus says, and who am I to tell God he’s wrong?) There is a large part of the Labour party which would disagree with me on those views (but certainly not all of it), and I have a real problem with that.

But I still believe that of the choices available, the Labour party is much closer to God’s heart than the Conservatives, and JKR’s statement goes a long way to explaining why. You see, in God’s eyes, the question isn’t who best deserves a handout from the government; it’s who most needs it. It was not for the righteous (let alone the self-righteous) that Jesus came and died, but for the unrighteous, and to call sinners to repentence.

For how many people, honestly, can the married tax allowance have made the difference between divorce or working a relationship through? Between marriage and cohabitation – or more likely promiscuity? Maybe a handful. Most of the time, the policy simply gives money to people who are already better off than if they were single. Encouraging marriage is a noble cause, but for the effect it has, a married tax allowance is not a great use of government money. By contrast, giving money to poor people with children - married or not – makes a real difference to the lives of everyone concerned, particularly the children, and at a time when they really need help. It’s quite possible that the financial help given to new parents may do more to save their relationships and therefore promote marriage than the married tax allowance ever did.

But the focus of the Labour party’s policies hasn’t been on poor adults – it’s been on poor children. Children cannot help how many parents they have, nor by how hard their parents work. There may be a "moral hazard" in looking after the poor, but that moral hazard does not apply to children, as they can do very little to affect their own situation. And anyway, the concept of moral hazard - so important to right-wingers - is not something that should colour Christian thinking. It's not that it's not a valid concept - it accurately describes the fallen nature of humanity. But the only references you’ll find to it in the Bible are where we are explicitly commanded not to act in such a way. Hence the injunction that the Israelites should not reduce the value of property knowing that a year of jubilee was coming, and Paul’s comment that "should I sin more, so that grace may increase? By no means!" Yes, some people will take advantage of our good nature, but the Bible is absolutely clear that this should not discourage us from being helpful to others. If anything, the opposite: if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Because it is God who holds people to account for their actions - not us.

The reason why child poverty – or rather, poverty in families with children – is so important is that being brought up poor is so limiting to life opportunity. Yes, people can climb out of poverty. But it’s wrong to presume (as most right-wing thinking does) that if one person can escape depravation and make something of their life, then everyone can, and therefore that the poor are only ever so because of their own laziness. It takes exceptional drive and ability to do this, and few people are fortunate enough to be born like that. It is not enough to be able to point to a handful of people like JKR or Damon Buffini who have conquered adversity and therefore to claim that we live in a culture of equal opportunity. What the Labour government stands for (or should) more than anything is sweeping away a system which means that a child’s prospects in life are still largely determined by the income of its parents.

And that’s the nub. The thing the right-wing fear most is to see the children of those they label as poor and therefore feckless getting all the same opportunities that they work so hard to give their own pandered progeny. Which is what God wants more than anything. Once again, I am reminded of that fantastic prophesy of Jeremiah’s: No longer will it be said, the parents have eaten a sour grape and the children’s teeth are set on edge. Instead, everyone will die for his own sin, and whoever has eaten a sour grape, his own teeth will be set on edge. That is the heart of God.

The last thing God wants is that sinners get what they deserve. Why else did Jesus die? The politics of the right is all about the preservation of wealth and inequality. The politics of the left is about equality of opportunity and giving people a chance to start again. It is the politics of Christ.

Is it right for those in government to enforce their religious beliefs and norms on their subjects?

This question is normally raised by secularists, or at least those who disagree with the religious beliefs of the government, but I of course being me, I want to answer it from a Christian perspective.

The question is related to the question of freedom of religion. People generally see that as a good thing, but personally I think it’s meaningless and impossible. The US constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, but this doesn’t seem to stop them passing laws against some religiously motivated practices, such as ritual sacrifice or abuse, 9/11, cannabis smoking, or proselytising in certain circumstances. You can get around some of this by redefining the freedom as not extending to things one person does to another, but that is effectively establishing a personalised approach to faith – something that is not entirely compatible with Christianity, let alone many other religions. Freedom of religion is meaningless unless it guarantees you freedom to break the law when your personal faith / morality / worldview demands it, and for that reason, I don’t think any country can or should attempt to guarantee it. The nature of democracy or government at all is effectively that it enforces laws on people whether they like them or not. Even if a democracy only enacts laws which the majority agree with (which in itself is blatantly not the case, and sometimes probably rightly so), it can still pass laws which a minority disagree with. That incidentally is one of the reasons why democracy as we understand it really doesn’t work in countries that are deeply divided on racial or religious lines … but I digress.

So there are times when the government does pass laws restricting people’s freedom, religious or otherwise, and rightly so. That being the case, and me being a Christian, should I support legislation which brings the laws of the land more in line with Christian principles?

There are people who would say I should. One of the arguments goes like this: in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel suffered or prospered according to the behaviour of its citizens, therefore by passing laws forcing to behave in a more Christian manner, we will experience God’s favour on our nation. I think that’s a fallacious and very dangerous argument. Israel in the Old Testament was God’s country, his chosen people. In new testament times, no nation can claim to be God’s country. (To say otherwise is idolatry). God’s people now are not a physical nation but a spiritual one, gathered together from every tribe and tongue and nation (Gal 3:28-29; Revelation 7:9 etc). In the New Testament model, we are not judged and treated as a nation, but as individuals (fulfilling the fantastic prophesy of Jeremiah 31:29-30).

So putting aside that argument, there’s the argument that people are better off following God’s rules for their life. That’s sort of true, but also a bit of a dubious argument; first, because people don’t always obey the laws, and making things illegal can cause problems in itself (for example, drug and alcohol prohibition laws payroll a lot of organized crime and are responsible for a lot of very disorganized crime).

And there’s a bigger issue here. What is the biggest sin a person can commit? Answer: to reject God – i.e., not be a Christian. (If you are a Christian and came up with a different answer, then think again). Should that be illegal? And would you really change anyone’s beliefs or faith if you did? I very much doubt it. And if it’s not worth legislating for that, why bother about lesser things?

There’s a good biblical precedent for this too: that the laws of a state should not necessarily be the same as God’s laws of right and wrong. In the Old Testament, the God-given law for the Jewish people permitted divorce. But this was not because God things divorce is acceptable, as Jesus makes clear (Mark 5:1-12). Rather it was because making divorce illegal would have caused social ills that far outweighed the benefit of the moral guidance such a law might have provided. Lets face it, whatever the law says, people don’t divorce without some kind of sin being involved. The laws of the land are not just about what is ethical; they are more about what is practical.

There is a strand of Christian teaching in the US in particular that runs pretty much contrary to everything I’m saying here. That’s kind of why I’m writing this, because I think those views are wrong and damaging. I was particularly prompted to write by the example of Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin, although not knowing much about either of them (who does?) I can’t comment on how much I agree or disagree with their views in particular. I was interested though in a comment on the news that Republican supporters (who, like all groups mentioned on the news, always think alike) say that Bristol’s pregnancy doesn’t reflect on her mom, but praise Sarah for teaching her daughter well enough that she’s getting married and not having an abortion. Well, you can’t have it both ways. I personally hope that the decisions are Bristol’s and not the result of parental pressure; in particular, I think that getting married because you are pregnant shows a lack of respect for marriage. Marriage is for life, not just for babies – but I digress again.

This strand of Christianity seems to see benefit in trying to persuade people who don’t believe in Jesus to behave as if they did. That for me is the worst thing about this teaching; because that is ultimately preaching a gospel of works, not of salvation by faith. It feeds the common misconception that the essence of Christianity is that if you do the right things, you will go to heaven, and if you don’t you won’t. This is the antithesis of true Christianity, which says that if you try to do the right things, you will fail, but if you do the wrong things, you can be forgiven through Jesus. Campaigning for stronger laws and vilifying those who break them is not Christian, it is anti-Christian. It’s worth remembering that the strongest criticism in the New Testament is aimed not at the pagans, but at Christians who are more interested in making and following rules than in spreading God’s forgiveness (Matthew 23; Galatians 5:12).

For those of you who are US citizens – bear that in mind as you vote on November 4th.

Beijing Olympics (2)

I mentioned previously that I felt some discomfort with China’s hosting of the Olympic Games in the light of their human rights record. It’s a complex issue, to be fair; I doubt any country can claim an unblemished record on human rights. Also, the things that bother me most about China may not be those that bother other people. But the point is there are a lot of reasons why people might be unhappy about China. As examples: the way it treats its workers; pollution; the one-child policy, or at least some of the issues of how that is implemented; the treatment of Tibet; the censorship of the press; and the harsh way the government deals with dissent.

Now with the Olympics being hosted in China, that naturally draws more media attention to the country, and therefore that’s a good time to bring some of these issues to the public attention. Certainly in the run up to the games, the Olympic torch relays were seen my many as an opportunity to create protests to draw attention to certain causes, and, whatever I might think of those causes, I have to say, good on them.

So one thing that really bothered me about the Olympics was the lack of any noticeable protests during the games themselves. Maybe this is just to do with its coverage on the BBC, but I suspect not. I’m sure there have been odd scuffles outside the events, but its easy for the Chinese government with its control of the media to stifle those. Things have probably changed in China since the 1989 Tienanmen Square outrage. But maybe not very much.

It would have course have been easy for the Chinese government to suppress (probably brutally) any protests happening during the Olympics. They probably did; I doubt we would have heard anything about it. But there is one place during the Olympic games where any protests would have been guaranteed to reach the eyes and ears of the world – and where I suspect even the Chinese government would have been powerless to torture or murder. On the podium.

After all, it’s been done before. In 1968, at the medal ceremony for the 200m, American Athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos and Australian Peter Norman made a protest about the treatment of blacks in the US.

There are those who feel that the Olympics is no place for this kind of protest. Sadly it seems that most sports are run by people like this. After the 1968 protest, all three athletes were effectively banned from the Olympics for life. How many Olympic associations would have supported an athlete involved in such a protest in 2008? And if they had, would they have risked the Chinese sending the entire team home? Maybe there were some who would have liked to protest but who felt that the human cost for them would have been too high. I have sympathy with them; you have to choose your battles. But I also feel that given everything that happens in China, then choosing to stand on a podium and not make a protest – and that is a choice – is to a small extent standing in complicity with the government that has used such bloody methods to stifle dissent and control its citizens.

I am in awe of everyone who won medals at the Olympics. But I also feel that each athlete who stood quietly on the podium is somehow less human as a result.