Love conquers all?

I was having an interesting discussion recently with a clergyman who talked about his experience with couples coming to get married.

He was saying that, whilst many had been living together and he was therefore often advised not to marry them, he was in disagreement and felt they ought to be married. For in his experience it is couples of this generation who have had time to gain a greater understanding of what marriage is all about, and, whereas 30 years ago it was common to get married as a 'license for sex' or to prevent ill repute because the lady in question was pregnant, nowadays couples tended to approach for marriage because they are ready to make a final, binding commitment: and are indeed aware of how strong a commitment it is to make.

This raises two rather interesting points. The first is that those who claim that the world has 'gone to pot' and that, when they were younger, people had better values about such things, ought to consider a different perspective. Was it better for people to get married for such shallow reasons? And was sex before marriage really virtually non-existent? Or was it that people were simply more secretive for fear of being outcast?

The other interesting point stems from the comment made by the clergyman with whom I was conversing, who said something along the lines of "in my eyes surely it's better that we have two people in a serious, committed relationship...and that is what's important here".

Many conservative Christians, of course, would disagree, and claim that this attitude displays a total irreverence to scripture. But is Scripture the only source of authority about God? Can we not reason out the nature of God (to some extent)? Can our experience of God not count for anything?

For those who are willing to give place to other sources of authority, alongside (not in place of) the Bible, tend to note with more significance the fact that God is love - indeed, the embodiment of love. And they would therefore be likely to see that two people who genuinely love each other is one of the strongest symbols of all, and one of the most powerful indicators that maybe our society isn't a total pit of immorality and unscrupulousness after all.

So, that is the question. Was it better when couples were cast out by their own families and communities for having expressed their love for one another before being married? Or is it better to love and embrace people regardless? And did marriage mean more when there were less divorces (was this purely because people were more committed? or simply out of fear of the attitudes they would have received?) and people got married so that they could have sex? Or is it better that, by and large, a far higher proportion of those who get married, whilst they may have lived together and slept together, are by no means unaware of the gravity of the commitment which they are intending to make?

Overall: does love conquer all?

Make Me a Christian

This morning in Church the vicar preaching made regular reference to the recent Channel 4 reality show "Make me a Christian". If he will forgive me I will make reference to a few of his own comments about the show and collaborate them with my own ideas.

His immediate response, with which I agree entirely, was to the title: "Make me a Christian". Immediately the antennae of the sceptic will be aroused by this phrase, one which implies that becoming a Christian, or indeed a believer in any faith, involves coercion and passivity rather than making an active, conscious decision entirely of one's own accord. 1-0 to the secularist sceptic.

Next the producers cleverly chose four religious leaders who behaved more like Victorian schoolmasters. So the view of Christianity as being about coercion is thus edified; the Christian life according to the image created by the programme involves a constant monitoring of one's activities (with, yet again, a particular emphasis on sex: does no-one care about lying, hatred or violence any more?). 2-0 to the secularist sceptic.

The show then proceeded to show the Christian attitude towards anyone who questions the faith. In a meeting a particularly vocal sceptic of the faith raised questions about the authenticity of the Bible; a fair, if not age-old, issue. And how did the Christian minister in charge of the meeting respond? By effectively telling him to put his hand down, be quiet and do as he was told. What a fantastic testimony to the Christian faith, because after all, all Christians avoid and refuse to answer questions or engage in healthy debate, don't we? We are all ignorant, arrogant and bigoted. (Note the sarcasm). And, guess what, it's 3-0 to the secularist sceptic.

So it's not looking good so far. The image of the Christian life and faith is one of ignorance, arrogance, harsh rules, non-flexibility, bullying, judgement and a judgemental attitude, and coercion.

I may as well give up now...

But HOLD ON A MINUTE...there is a glimmer of hope. This glimmer came in a clip that lasted literally about 2 minutes, but that 2 minutes reflected for me what the entire series should have been like, and summarised for me what Christianity truly is. It was a moment when the otherwise bullying vicar questioned one of the female contestants about her life. And as he began to refer to the words Jesus spoke over 2000 years ago, there was a poignant moment in which the viewers could clearly see the change as the girl gradually become more and more tearful, and the messages and the issues addressed really hit home, and hit personal troubles, experiences and issues in this girl's life.

And THAT is what Christianity, indeed any faith, is about. It's not about rule-making or enforcing, or passing judgement, or coercion. It's about taking a person who is vulnerable (and, let's face it, we're all vulnerable at times), and showing them that the issues in their life can be addressed in a way that surpasses all Earthly methods.

For these methods call upon a force than which nothing greater exists: almighty God.