In a speech today, Nick Clegg is due to pledge the "biggest shake-up of our democracy" in 178 years.
Some of this is to be applauded, although the 55% parliament dissolution proposal is not.
Firstly, Clegg's defense of the Human Rights Act, which the Tores have previously pledged to replace, is good news. To quote in a Times interview today, "any government would tamper with it at its peril".
Secondly, he proposes to scrap the ID card scheme and accompanying National Identity Register, all future biometric passports, and the children's Contact Point Database. He also proposes to ensure that CCTV is "properly regulated", and will restrict the storage of innocent people's DNA.
These second points includes some of those policies the Labour government should have never proposed, introduced or, in the case of CCTVs, allowed to pervade our public environment to the degree they have.
David Miliband has asked people for their ideas. We can't turn back the clock, but I hope he (and other Labour politicians) will come to understand how such policies are diametrically opposed to what the Labour party should stand for.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Monday, 17 May 2010
The business leaders who thought they could have it all
The Labour government proposed raising national insurance, something which would not have come into effect until 2011, when the recovery would have been well under way. The Tories shouted loud and clear that such a rise would be a tax on jobs. Business leaders agreed. Not least Justin King, boss of Sainsbury's.
What the Conservatives forgot to mention (but of course we all knew) is that they would abolish the NI rise by increasing VAT. Justin King didn't like that. Suddenly, his joy at Labour not winning the election turned to concern. Removing VAT exemptions on food would hit the poorest shoppers the most, he said. How thoughtful! Of course, increasing VAT would hit non-food items - something upon which the supermarkets are increasingly relying. At the bottom of it all, what Justin King et al are most concerned about is the impact upon profits, whether that be from VAT or NI. The very businesses that criticised the jobs tax will see a downward spiral in profits.
Which takes me to my next point. NI rises do hit people, but they are mildly progressive. Increasing VAT is regressive. Those who will be most hit by increases and possible extension of VAT are the poor, old and ill. This is well trodden ground, but it needs repeating.
What the Conservatives forgot to mention (but of course we all knew) is that they would abolish the NI rise by increasing VAT. Justin King didn't like that. Suddenly, his joy at Labour not winning the election turned to concern. Removing VAT exemptions on food would hit the poorest shoppers the most, he said. How thoughtful! Of course, increasing VAT would hit non-food items - something upon which the supermarkets are increasingly relying. At the bottom of it all, what Justin King et al are most concerned about is the impact upon profits, whether that be from VAT or NI. The very businesses that criticised the jobs tax will see a downward spiral in profits.
Which takes me to my next point. NI rises do hit people, but they are mildly progressive. Increasing VAT is regressive. Those who will be most hit by increases and possible extension of VAT are the poor, old and ill. This is well trodden ground, but it needs repeating.
Independent economic forecasting
George Osborne has just announced that government economic forecasting will now be undertaken independently.
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. As Osborne says, budgets will now fit the forecast, not vice versa.
One problem I foresee is that government can now blame someone else for getting the forecasts wrong. Government forecasting helps to create accountability e.g. 'We got it wrong'. Government forecasting comes with the caveat that this is the government forecasting the figures, and therefore should be treated with some caution and balanced with other organisations' forecasts.
Related to this, government can look at these independent figures and then say, 'This is just one set of figures. We need to look at others' (which unsurprisingly, will look better). Which means we will be worse off than we are now.
On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. As Osborne says, budgets will now fit the forecast, not vice versa.
One problem I foresee is that government can now blame someone else for getting the forecasts wrong. Government forecasting helps to create accountability e.g. 'We got it wrong'. Government forecasting comes with the caveat that this is the government forecasting the figures, and therefore should be treated with some caution and balanced with other organisations' forecasts.
Related to this, government can look at these independent figures and then say, 'This is just one set of figures. We need to look at others' (which unsurprisingly, will look better). Which means we will be worse off than we are now.
If you were hoping for that new school in your area...
The previous government set aside an £8.5bn annual budget for new schools. Now, we hear that the new Conservative government plans on redirecting some of that money to help start the community/parent organised free schools the Conservatives had promised in the run up to the election.
Under the plans, secondary schools in authorities that have been approved to enter the Building Schools for the Future project but have not yet named their contractors may now lose their funding. Monies originally allocated to such projects will be diverted to private organisations, parent and teacher groups, who will be allowed to start a new school.
This will come as a serious blow. In March, the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, announced £420m in funding for new and refurbished secondary schools in Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Gateshead, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Sutton. In April, a £61.5m project for Cumbria was also approved. All of these are now under review.
A concern that I have is that these 'Swedish' style schools are actually closer in style to similar schools in America, many of which actually underperform and even perform worse than those they have replaced.
There will also be an inevitable delay in the building of new schools. The funding will be stopped in the hope that new community groups and organisations will come forward. And in its almost ideological drive to get these new schools built, I wonder just how little the whole new school project and parents and organisations will be closely examined? Suitably qualified, experienced, financed and planned? Pah! Mere trivialities.
Perhaps my biggest concern is that just how many of these 'community' schools will be organised by nice middle class educated parents in nice middle class areas at the expense of existing schools and schools which would have otherwise been built under the last government's plans situated in less desirable, less affluent and less privileged areas? As long as my Hermione is okay, who cares about your Britney?
Under the plans, secondary schools in authorities that have been approved to enter the Building Schools for the Future project but have not yet named their contractors may now lose their funding. Monies originally allocated to such projects will be diverted to private organisations, parent and teacher groups, who will be allowed to start a new school.
This will come as a serious blow. In March, the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, announced £420m in funding for new and refurbished secondary schools in Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Gateshead, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Sutton. In April, a £61.5m project for Cumbria was also approved. All of these are now under review.
A concern that I have is that these 'Swedish' style schools are actually closer in style to similar schools in America, many of which actually underperform and even perform worse than those they have replaced.
There will also be an inevitable delay in the building of new schools. The funding will be stopped in the hope that new community groups and organisations will come forward. And in its almost ideological drive to get these new schools built, I wonder just how little the whole new school project and parents and organisations will be closely examined? Suitably qualified, experienced, financed and planned? Pah! Mere trivialities.
Perhaps my biggest concern is that just how many of these 'community' schools will be organised by nice middle class educated parents in nice middle class areas at the expense of existing schools and schools which would have otherwise been built under the last government's plans situated in less desirable, less affluent and less privileged areas? As long as my Hermione is okay, who cares about your Britney?
Friday, 14 May 2010
On the dissolution of parliament
There is a proposal to be put to the UK parliament to allow MPs to dissolve parliament, but only if 55% of MPs vote to do so.
Right now, people tend to believe that the current position is such that a 'no-confidence' vote (when half of MPs plus one vote 'no-confidence') will automatically lead to the dissolution of Parliament. This is not the case. The current position is that MPs have no power to dissolve parliament. This is a matter for the prime minister, who asks the Queen to do so and can currently do so at any time of his or her choosing within a five-year term. An argument put forth by proponents of the new proposal is that it puts more power in the hands of MPs.
In reality, a no-confidence vote would currently give little choice to a Prime Minister. S/he is expected to dissolve parliament were a vote of no-confidence to pass. However, a major reason we should be against the 55% proposal is that should it pass, and MPs were to subsequently pass a no-confidence vote on the government, that government would be able to act against the majority will of Parliament and continue governing because the 55% rule would lend that government legitimacy which it currently would not have. (With suspicion of Parliament rarely having been greater than it is now, what message does this proposal send to the electorate?.) Parliament could be in the position in which the majority of MPs has no confidence in the government, but government is able to carry on because less than 55% of MPs have voted for Parliament's dissolution. This sounds less of a democracy and more of a dictatorship by the minority (something which we would expect the LibDems to be against!).
Right now, people tend to believe that the current position is such that a 'no-confidence' vote (when half of MPs plus one vote 'no-confidence') will automatically lead to the dissolution of Parliament. This is not the case. The current position is that MPs have no power to dissolve parliament. This is a matter for the prime minister, who asks the Queen to do so and can currently do so at any time of his or her choosing within a five-year term. An argument put forth by proponents of the new proposal is that it puts more power in the hands of MPs.
In reality, a no-confidence vote would currently give little choice to a Prime Minister. S/he is expected to dissolve parliament were a vote of no-confidence to pass. However, a major reason we should be against the 55% proposal is that should it pass, and MPs were to subsequently pass a no-confidence vote on the government, that government would be able to act against the majority will of Parliament and continue governing because the 55% rule would lend that government legitimacy which it currently would not have. (With suspicion of Parliament rarely having been greater than it is now, what message does this proposal send to the electorate?.) Parliament could be in the position in which the majority of MPs has no confidence in the government, but government is able to carry on because less than 55% of MPs have voted for Parliament's dissolution. This sounds less of a democracy and more of a dictatorship by the minority (something which we would expect the LibDems to be against!).
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
My prediction for the 2010 UK general election
The polls say that the Conservatives have a nine point or so lead over Labour. But apparently, 40% of voters haven't decided for whom to vote. It's these in whom we should be most interested.
Research shows that people who are unsure about a selection of options are, when forced to make a decision, more likely than not to go with what they know. If these undecideds choose to vote rather than stay at home, then a greater proportion than those who have already decided, will vote Labour.
It's also the case that history consistently shows that those who are top in the polls don't achieve those shares. Think back to 1992 and 1997. In 1992, Labour was up front, but didn't win. In 1997, Labour's share was not where near what the polls suggested it would be.
Put them both together, and we are looking at a fall in the Conservative share and a rise in the Labour share. We are also looking at a fall in Lib Dem share, which will impact other parties' shares, because when it comes to the cross, as been happening already, people will think about some of their policies. People would like an alternative to the big two, but they will consider them too risky, especially Clegg.
The most recent poll by Populus gives Conservatives 37%, Labour 28% and LibDems 27%. I would suggest that Conservatives will achieve 33%, Labour 33% and LibDems 25%. Translated to seats, using the BBC Election Seat Calculator, the Conservatives will gain 224 seats, Labour 324 seats, and LibDems 73 seats. This seat share is surprising, but my analysis is more about share.
Research shows that people who are unsure about a selection of options are, when forced to make a decision, more likely than not to go with what they know. If these undecideds choose to vote rather than stay at home, then a greater proportion than those who have already decided, will vote Labour.
It's also the case that history consistently shows that those who are top in the polls don't achieve those shares. Think back to 1992 and 1997. In 1992, Labour was up front, but didn't win. In 1997, Labour's share was not where near what the polls suggested it would be.
Put them both together, and we are looking at a fall in the Conservative share and a rise in the Labour share. We are also looking at a fall in Lib Dem share, which will impact other parties' shares, because when it comes to the cross, as been happening already, people will think about some of their policies. People would like an alternative to the big two, but they will consider them too risky, especially Clegg.
The most recent poll by Populus gives Conservatives 37%, Labour 28% and LibDems 27%. I would suggest that Conservatives will achieve 33%, Labour 33% and LibDems 25%. Translated to seats, using the BBC Election Seat Calculator, the Conservatives will gain 224 seats, Labour 324 seats, and LibDems 73 seats. This seat share is surprising, but my analysis is more about share.
That Observer article
For some Christians, it was ‘sickening’, for others it was ‘hypocritical’ and ‘hateful’.
The story that recently ran in The Observer about Philippa Stroud and her apparent attitudes and activities around homosexuality raised similar comments from people who would not call themselves Christians. The difference between the two are that the former feel that the Observer’s article is biased against Christians and full of untruths. For the latter, the story just shows how the Conservatives (and ‘the Church’) haven’t changed and are full of bigots.
The heat this story has generated among tweeters and bloggers, although strangely not across the press, makes this story worthy of an in-depth and informed critique. This blog post isn’t one of these.
At the outset, let me confess that there was something about the responses from Christians that far outweighed the article itself. Perhaps deep down, Christians feel they are consistently given a bad press, and this article is yet another ‘biased, anti-Christian, liberal diatribe’ against them, and so these comments and blogs are more of a response to (what they perceive to be) the general ‘stream of anti-Christian hatred’? Interestingly, one thing that leads me to concluding this is what they believe is that whilst going through the tweets and responses, I found very few specific criticisms of the piece, just general dislike for it. So much for critical and informed thought.
As a Christian myself, I can see the ‘Church’ has form when it comes to sin, and it seems to me that many Christians are reluctant or unable to reflexively think about exactly how badly behaved the ‘Church’ and people professing to be Christians can be. Hardly surprising then that the media doesn’t have many good words for the Church. To name a few, child abuse, financial scandals, politicians confessing to be Christians going to war arguably illegally. Yes, and there are even those who profess that homosexuals will go to hell (e.g. http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=1039). Some Christians do lots of good things, some do lots of bad things too. Some professing Christians seem not to be Christians at all.
So, what exactly is in the article for which Christians will take offense? Take the title of the article: ‘Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people.’
On the one hand, the intention is to communicate how terrible this is. For the average Observer/Guardian reader, and even wider society, people are free to be and practise their sexual orientation, free of state, legal and social interference. Given this, Christians may rightly or wrongly accuse the writer of being anti-Christian. But so what? Christians may also responds that this accusation is incorrect. “We don’t’ believe that homosexuality can be cured”’ Well, that’s not entirely true. There are both Christian and secular psychologists, psychiatrists and counsellors who believe that homosexual desire can be traced back to childhood. There are Christians who explicitly or implicitly believe that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ (e.g. http://www.christianhealingmin.org/newsletter/archives/healing/homosexuality.php). I'm sure that most of these aren't based around the premise ‘come to Jesus and he’ll set you free,’ but you wouldn’t expect any newspaper to enter into the nuances of Christian psychotherapy.. Further, to quote one church elder from the same group of churches as Stroud, “Show me a person who has issues with their sexuality, and I will show you a person who has had issues with his or her father.” Bit of a wide-ranging conclusion, that. Whether homosexuality should be seen as 'curable' is dependent upon the judgment made.
Which takes me to my next point. There seems to be a real lack of thought and discussion among Christians about how to respond to homosexuality. In many instances, I think that a more liberal understanding of homosexuality in society has oriented some Christians to subtly and unintentionally change their responses. But we lack a consistent and informed response beyond the ‘well, it’s wrong isn’t it’, which simply will not do. Perhaps there isn’t a single response, but homosexuality isn’t a frequent subject of any discussion in Christian circles, let alone informed and measured discussion.
The first paragraph. Stroud founded a church that has tried to ‘cure’ homosexuals by driving out their ‘demons’ through prayer. Admittedly, at the very least it’s overly simplistic. But firstly, again we seem to expect too much from unbelievers. For most people today, Christians are nuts; at the very least, weird. Don’t many evangelicals believe in demons and their impacts upon some people’s lives? Many of the things Christians believe form part of a completely different world view than unbelievers. Jesus being God? A man raised from the dead who is alive today? This paragraph is written with a huge paintbrush, but hateful toward Christians? Sickening? I don’t’ think so.
This opening paragraph is used to configure a particular interpretation of the next two paragraphs. Stroud, who has these really weird and harmful beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality, has informed Conservative policy related to families, communities and societies. Thus, they are hugely flawed. Given this reading, the subject of the piece is less about Stroud and homosexuality, and more about Conservatives and how Conservative policy has been informed. The former (Stroud and homosexuality) is a springboard for judgement about the latter.
But let’s go on. What do people in the article have to say about Stroud and her Church? We read about Abi. Is this story so monstrous? Abi concludes, “She (Stroud) really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus." Frankly, I’m not sure what is so distasteful here for Christians, if indeed this forms part of their overall criticism of the article. It may be simplistic, but for many Christians, Jesus does ‘heal’ people. And I’ve heard these kinds of prayers. Addiction can be fixed by prayer? Jackie Pullinger anyone? I would say Abi’s comment is more of a reflection of what has often been the ‘quick n easy’ solutions provided by some Christians who have been reluctant to deeply engage with people and with the serious business of counselling (‘navel gazing, surely!’ to which I respond ‘read John 4:4-42’).
Move onto ‘T’, whose only criticism seems to be, it was only after he "took a break" from the church that his depression lifted. "It was the church's attitude towards my sexuality that was the issue," he recalled. Hardly sickening or hateful. He even goes onto say “"My impression is that she genuinely cares about people," he said of Stroud. "Her personal beliefs may get in the way sometimes, but she is a positive person." Sounds pretty positive to me.
Next, we read about Angela Paterson, who was an administrator at the Bedford church. She said: "With hindsight, the thing that freaks me out was everybody praying that a demon would be cast out of me because I was gay. Anything – drugs, alcohol or homosexuality, they thought you had a demon in you." Negative stuff, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to many Christians that they are now laying in the bed they have previously made. Some Christians have moved beyond this. But again, we do have a history, and there are still a number of Christians who believe and teach this. We seem to object to journalists highlighting, what is for many, our history and embarrassments. ‘How dare they?’ appears to be our response.
The article then goes on to quote from Stroud’s book, ‘God’s heart for the poor’. Perhaps they have taken them out of context. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. But what is there for Christians to object to here? When she says, "I'd say the bottom line is to remember your spiritual authority as a child of God. He is so much more powerful than anything else" I think, ‘wow, a journalist quoting someone who is saying that God is so much more powerful than anything else? Sure, the intention of the writer is to dismiss, but what do we expect? There is someone in the media quoting the greatness of our God.
Thus, although there are Christians who can’t believe how one sided this article is, my view is that it seems remarkably balanced when subject to scrutiny. Nevertheless, we may say it only tells one half of the story. But let’s remember, Stroud refused to talk to the Observer, and so we are left merely with the response of Summerskill from Stonewall. We can’t have it both ways.
Moving beyond this article, I think there is a much broader comment to make. Why should the media pick up on this in particular? As I have said, we Christians have history around homosexuality, and we are rightfully open to accusations of hypocrisy, among others. ‘So, homosexuality is a sin? What about accusations of infidelity among Christians, including their leaders? What about child abuse scandals among Christian workers? (And they’re not all Catholics, by the way!). The words ‘speck’ and ‘plank’ come to mind.
Frankly, I wonder why we don’t have headlines such as the following, which would far more represent Jesus’ and the apostles’ teaching? What we say may not always be picked up by the media, but we need to be saying these things in the first place, unpalatable though they may seem
“Rising Tory star tells rich people in her constituency to sell some of what they have and give to the poor”
“Rising Labour star tells local church members to sell some of their land they own and give to those in need”
“Rising LibDem star tells politicians not to deny justice to immigrants” (Malachi 3:5)
The story that recently ran in The Observer about Philippa Stroud and her apparent attitudes and activities around homosexuality raised similar comments from people who would not call themselves Christians. The difference between the two are that the former feel that the Observer’s article is biased against Christians and full of untruths. For the latter, the story just shows how the Conservatives (and ‘the Church’) haven’t changed and are full of bigots.
The heat this story has generated among tweeters and bloggers, although strangely not across the press, makes this story worthy of an in-depth and informed critique. This blog post isn’t one of these.
At the outset, let me confess that there was something about the responses from Christians that far outweighed the article itself. Perhaps deep down, Christians feel they are consistently given a bad press, and this article is yet another ‘biased, anti-Christian, liberal diatribe’ against them, and so these comments and blogs are more of a response to (what they perceive to be) the general ‘stream of anti-Christian hatred’? Interestingly, one thing that leads me to concluding this is what they believe is that whilst going through the tweets and responses, I found very few specific criticisms of the piece, just general dislike for it. So much for critical and informed thought.
As a Christian myself, I can see the ‘Church’ has form when it comes to sin, and it seems to me that many Christians are reluctant or unable to reflexively think about exactly how badly behaved the ‘Church’ and people professing to be Christians can be. Hardly surprising then that the media doesn’t have many good words for the Church. To name a few, child abuse, financial scandals, politicians confessing to be Christians going to war arguably illegally. Yes, and there are even those who profess that homosexuals will go to hell (e.g. http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=1039). Some Christians do lots of good things, some do lots of bad things too. Some professing Christians seem not to be Christians at all.
So, what exactly is in the article for which Christians will take offense? Take the title of the article: ‘Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people.’
On the one hand, the intention is to communicate how terrible this is. For the average Observer/Guardian reader, and even wider society, people are free to be and practise their sexual orientation, free of state, legal and social interference. Given this, Christians may rightly or wrongly accuse the writer of being anti-Christian. But so what? Christians may also responds that this accusation is incorrect. “We don’t’ believe that homosexuality can be cured”’ Well, that’s not entirely true. There are both Christian and secular psychologists, psychiatrists and counsellors who believe that homosexual desire can be traced back to childhood. There are Christians who explicitly or implicitly believe that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ (e.g. http://www.christianhealingmin.org/newsletter/archives/healing/homosexuality.php). I'm sure that most of these aren't based around the premise ‘come to Jesus and he’ll set you free,’ but you wouldn’t expect any newspaper to enter into the nuances of Christian psychotherapy.. Further, to quote one church elder from the same group of churches as Stroud, “Show me a person who has issues with their sexuality, and I will show you a person who has had issues with his or her father.” Bit of a wide-ranging conclusion, that. Whether homosexuality should be seen as 'curable' is dependent upon the judgment made.
Which takes me to my next point. There seems to be a real lack of thought and discussion among Christians about how to respond to homosexuality. In many instances, I think that a more liberal understanding of homosexuality in society has oriented some Christians to subtly and unintentionally change their responses. But we lack a consistent and informed response beyond the ‘well, it’s wrong isn’t it’, which simply will not do. Perhaps there isn’t a single response, but homosexuality isn’t a frequent subject of any discussion in Christian circles, let alone informed and measured discussion.
The first paragraph. Stroud founded a church that has tried to ‘cure’ homosexuals by driving out their ‘demons’ through prayer. Admittedly, at the very least it’s overly simplistic. But firstly, again we seem to expect too much from unbelievers. For most people today, Christians are nuts; at the very least, weird. Don’t many evangelicals believe in demons and their impacts upon some people’s lives? Many of the things Christians believe form part of a completely different world view than unbelievers. Jesus being God? A man raised from the dead who is alive today? This paragraph is written with a huge paintbrush, but hateful toward Christians? Sickening? I don’t’ think so.
This opening paragraph is used to configure a particular interpretation of the next two paragraphs. Stroud, who has these really weird and harmful beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality, has informed Conservative policy related to families, communities and societies. Thus, they are hugely flawed. Given this reading, the subject of the piece is less about Stroud and homosexuality, and more about Conservatives and how Conservative policy has been informed. The former (Stroud and homosexuality) is a springboard for judgement about the latter.
But let’s go on. What do people in the article have to say about Stroud and her Church? We read about Abi. Is this story so monstrous? Abi concludes, “She (Stroud) really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus." Frankly, I’m not sure what is so distasteful here for Christians, if indeed this forms part of their overall criticism of the article. It may be simplistic, but for many Christians, Jesus does ‘heal’ people. And I’ve heard these kinds of prayers. Addiction can be fixed by prayer? Jackie Pullinger anyone? I would say Abi’s comment is more of a reflection of what has often been the ‘quick n easy’ solutions provided by some Christians who have been reluctant to deeply engage with people and with the serious business of counselling (‘navel gazing, surely!’ to which I respond ‘read John 4:4-42’).
Move onto ‘T’, whose only criticism seems to be, it was only after he "took a break" from the church that his depression lifted. "It was the church's attitude towards my sexuality that was the issue," he recalled. Hardly sickening or hateful. He even goes onto say “"My impression is that she genuinely cares about people," he said of Stroud. "Her personal beliefs may get in the way sometimes, but she is a positive person." Sounds pretty positive to me.
Next, we read about Angela Paterson, who was an administrator at the Bedford church. She said: "With hindsight, the thing that freaks me out was everybody praying that a demon would be cast out of me because I was gay. Anything – drugs, alcohol or homosexuality, they thought you had a demon in you." Negative stuff, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to many Christians that they are now laying in the bed they have previously made. Some Christians have moved beyond this. But again, we do have a history, and there are still a number of Christians who believe and teach this. We seem to object to journalists highlighting, what is for many, our history and embarrassments. ‘How dare they?’ appears to be our response.
The article then goes on to quote from Stroud’s book, ‘God’s heart for the poor’. Perhaps they have taken them out of context. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. But what is there for Christians to object to here? When she says, "I'd say the bottom line is to remember your spiritual authority as a child of God. He is so much more powerful than anything else" I think, ‘wow, a journalist quoting someone who is saying that God is so much more powerful than anything else? Sure, the intention of the writer is to dismiss, but what do we expect? There is someone in the media quoting the greatness of our God.
Thus, although there are Christians who can’t believe how one sided this article is, my view is that it seems remarkably balanced when subject to scrutiny. Nevertheless, we may say it only tells one half of the story. But let’s remember, Stroud refused to talk to the Observer, and so we are left merely with the response of Summerskill from Stonewall. We can’t have it both ways.
Moving beyond this article, I think there is a much broader comment to make. Why should the media pick up on this in particular? As I have said, we Christians have history around homosexuality, and we are rightfully open to accusations of hypocrisy, among others. ‘So, homosexuality is a sin? What about accusations of infidelity among Christians, including their leaders? What about child abuse scandals among Christian workers? (And they’re not all Catholics, by the way!). The words ‘speck’ and ‘plank’ come to mind.
Frankly, I wonder why we don’t have headlines such as the following, which would far more represent Jesus’ and the apostles’ teaching? What we say may not always be picked up by the media, but we need to be saying these things in the first place, unpalatable though they may seem
“Rising Tory star tells rich people in her constituency to sell some of what they have and give to the poor”
“Rising Labour star tells local church members to sell some of their land they own and give to those in need”
“Rising LibDem star tells politicians not to deny justice to immigrants” (Malachi 3:5)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
