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?

Thinking Day

Today has been a day of me thinking. This has been for two primary reasons.


The first is that I celebrated my birthday. Birthdays do often have that habit of inducing thought and reflection upon one's soul. And as I pondered I thought of the miracle of childbirth, and the greater miracle of what such tiny babies can one day become...to think of all those who were once tiny babies - Einstein, Newton, Churchill, Thatcher, Kant, Picasso - and so many more.


And of course - Jesus. To think that the saviour of the world began life as a helpless, crying baby.


And then I thought of the last years of my life - some of the experiences with which I have been blessed, or indeed cursed. And I pondered whether the positives outweighed the negatives, and, of course, deep down -they do.


The other reason I was in a "pondering" sort of mood was that today was in fact that the 70th anniversary of Britain and France's declaring of war on Germany. This news would have been terrifying and frightening to thousands of children and adults, men and women, soldiers and civilians alike - but at the same time was felt necessary to undertake in order to ensure the freedom of Poland, and indeed later on, many more countries, including our own beloved nation.


As I was watching the ITV1 programme 'Outbreak' - a superb documentary chronologically accounting, hour by hour, this day in 1939, I found myself attempting to imagine what it must have been like - for the soldiers, for the evacuees, for the women losing their children and their partners - and those men, and of course women, who served faithfully not knowing whether they would live to see the next day. I felt, and indeed feel, such admiration.


And so the combination of the anniversary of the outbreak of the war - combined with the comparatively trivial anniversary of my birth! - led me to conclude that, as always, God is very much 'in the picture'. He sees through time and time again the miracle of childbirth, and nurtures his creation. He inspires, motivates and touches the lives of thousands upon thousands, and in a time of war when people seemed devoid of hope, he was present.


I am eternally grateful, too, that I am fortunate enough to (currently) live a life of comparative luxury in relation to the lives of those during WW2. And I therefore thank God that we, at least, can know 'Peace in our time'.

An unreasonable command

Sorry, Jesus. You may have loved us enough to die for us, but we feel You're asking too much of us to simply love each other in our daily lives.

You see, we are a bit too busy. I'd love to help my neighbour in need, but I am far too preoccupied. I can't even help my friend, so I feel it's unreasonable to expect me to help my acquaintance.

And we are kind of a bit more 'out for ourselves' now, Jesus, you see. We "look after number 1" - who else will, after all?

So we go for what we want. It doesn't matter if two people love one another; if we fancy one of the two partners we will do our best to get to them. To hell with the feelings of the other person.

If I want to make money, I'll do it. Sorry, but money is important! It makes the world go round. I can't afford to sacrifice a single penny in a recession, even if it means hurting other people in the process. They won't help me, you see. But money will!

And if my friend irritates me sufficiently, I feel I have the right to at least smack him in the mouth. In fact, if he really gets to me, I have the right to beat him up - and set my 'mates' on him. He deserves it, after all.

And if my 'gang' gets 'dissed' by this other gang - we have the right to make sure we stab that gang's leader or another member to death. They deserve it, after all. Sorry, but it doesn't matter that that person will have parents and siblings and relatives and friends who love him. He wound us up, and that's all that matters.

And what about all those people suffering who need rest? Well I would like to give them peace, but if I'm angry, I have the right to shout. Even if it does disturb the terminally ill patient's rest. Sorry, but you seem to have forgotten - I look after number 1.

Charity? Well, I can't afford to donate a thing. It's a recession, as I've already said. Yes, I know that people don't stop dying in a recession. I know that those in the 2/3 world who suffer severe poverty are the worst hit at times like this - but hello? Remember? I need to make sure I'm all right here!

So the bottom line is, Lord, I know you want us to love one another - but this is not realistic in today's society. We are too busy with other things to take 5 minutes to help a friend or neighbour out. The fact is that sometimes, also, we just can't be bothered! Is it such a crime if I can't be bothered to pop round and visit the old lonely housebound lady? And we know what's important - looking after number one. We have unwritten permission to do whatever it takes to make sure we're all right.

As for everyone else? Well, they just don't matter, I'm afraid.

Books by their cover, etc..

Presently the whole world is discussing the situation of a female athlete, Caster Semenya, an 18 year old South African who ran the 800m this summer.

The issue is that she apparently looks like a man. She was therefore forced to submit to gender verification tests to prove that she was in fact the gender she claimed she was.

Of course, this in itself is humiliating enough for someone to endure when all they desire is to succeed in an event they love. But the International Associations of Athletics Federations (IAAF) didn't feel that this was sufficient. They felt that it was necessary for the world to know that such suspicions were felt and that tests were carried out.

Meanwhile, this poor...I shall have to say person, I suppose...has had to go through all this, and has done so gracefully. For this alone she deserves a medal.

This situation is utterly ridiculous. Here we are in the 21st century - the era of 'human rights' - and we feel it is justified to poke fun globally at a talented athlete simply because she doesn't fit our desired appearance. She looks slightly masculine, so she must be a man. My cat growls like a dog from time to time, so, by this ingenious logic, she is, of course, a dog.

I am disgusted that people feel it is justifiable to make such accusations and to publicise to all and sundry with absolutely no regard for Semenya's feelings. Competitors have outrightly claimed "She's a man". Do we not care about being sensitive to people any more?

Evidently as a society we are more interested in a cheap laugh than in allowing someone their dignity. Speculation and suspicion mean more to us than respect. And we are perfectly content to trample on someone's emotions because there might be an interesting 'scandal' story for us parasites of the human race to feed on.

I am personally fairly confident that she's just an unfortunate woman. And not unfortunate because of how she looks, but because her fellow human beings consider it an issue.

Clearly the phrase 'don't judge a book by its cover' means nothing to the IAAF. Or to the rest of us, for that matter.

The Splendour of God

I had the pleasure of a visit to St. Paul's Cathedral, London today.

I could not express in words how overwhelming the awesomeness of such a magnificent building truly is. And in such a building, whilst one is indeed in awe of Sir Christopher Wren, and the many other important figures involved in its design, building and development, one must not forget the entire purpose of such a building.

For St. Paul's Cathedral, indeed all cathedrals, were built with one primary purpose at the forefront of the designers' minds: to glorify the most high, God Himself - and to bring people closer to him whilst witnessing the majesty of his creation.

I myself was throughout my entire visit in that marvellous place conscious of the One without whom there would be no cathedrals, and indeed, no people to create them.

It is sad that many hundreds of people pass through such places, admiring the artwork, the architecture, the history - and yet somehow manage to overlook the centre of their entire being.

I hope and pray that as each and every person enters St. Paul's, or indeed any cathedral, they appreciate the One who inspired the craftwork and the architecure, and who blessed each designer and labourer with the skill and knowledge to be able to collectively produce such amazing buildings.

Because for me, it is impossible to view such a magnificent landmark and still claim that God does not exist.

To emphasise the beauty of God's creation I finish with the words of William Blake in the first verse of his poem "Auguries of Innocence":

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

An Interesting Day

What an interesting day of headlines. Two major news stories have been reported with regards to the relationship between the Church and the homosexual community.

Firstly, I was delighted to read that the Catholic Church has, at long last, praised the work of the late and truly great Oscar Wilde. One of the true literary geniuses, and indeed prominent characters in all of time, Wilde has long been 'taboo' for the Catholic Church - for he was, as most will know, also a notorious homosexual. Being gay even now is a rather dodgy issue for many - but in the nineteenth century it was literally criminal.

The Catholic Church have applied reason and have clearly agreed that maybe praising a man's genius isn't condoning his lifestyle after all. Irrespective of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, the man contributed much to the world and actually converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. Had Shakespeare been gay, would the Catholic Church have harboured the same attitude towards him?

And the second item of news is, rather surprisingly, that at the Episcopal convention of Bishops in Anaheim, California, the US bishops' vote was an astonishing 104-30 in favour of the proposition to "collect and develop theological resources and liturgies" for blessing same-gender relationships, to be considered at the next convention in 2012. This will inevitably widen the gap between conservative Christians and liberal Christians. Will it inevitably lead to schism?

To me, we are already dividing ourselves by insisting on calling ourselves 'conservative' and 'liberal'. Why can't we find a middle ground? Why do conservatives have to be Bible-bashing anti-rationalists who interpret the entire Bible literally, and liberals be wishy-washy intellectuals who believe the entire thing is a metaphor? Can it not be that the Bible, being a complex library of 66 books crafted by numerous different authors across hundreds of years, is in fact an intricate combination of literal doctrine, cultural laws, allegory and historical accounts?

It is such a shame that we cannot simply agree as a Church that our centre is Jesus Christ, and that interpretations of other matters will inevitably differ - that is a fact of life. It is a shame also that we cannot focus on more pressing issues. The Bible is far more vocal in its commands to love others and feed the poor than it is on whether two people of the same gender can love one another. Jesus himself seems to be silent on the matter of homosexuality, and yet talks repeatedly about loving and serving others. If as a Church we began to focus more on such issues and less on comparatively insignificant matters, there might in fact be little to divide us after all.

Not worthy of funding

A report endorsed by Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York and co-written by the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Bishop for Urban Life and Faith, has accused the government of an unjustified prejudice against Christianity when considering funding applications.

I'm glad that, finally, someone has spoken out.

The prejudice here is not just a financial issue - it represents a far deeper issue. The issue that Christianity, being a majority, is left to struggle on its own with no defence, whilst the government bends over backwards to support and defend 'minorities', is an issue which has been present for decades.

It is the issue of a lack of equality among faiths. A century ago Christianity would have been considered more important than other faiths. This, of course, is wrong.

However, what the powers that be seem infinitely incapable of comprehending is that the way to gain equality isn't by making the former majority subordinate. All one achieves then is shifting the balance - so that the majority becomes the least important, whilst, conversely, the minority becomes the priority when giving support and protection.

Prejudice of all kinds is wrong. But it does not become resolved when the former advocates of such prejudice become the victims. Christianity has the right to be treated equally with other religions: not with favour, nor with disregard. Similarly, all races should be treated equally: the horrors of apartheid were not resolved by treating white citizens as inferior but by treating all citizens as equal. Genders ought to be equal; feminists cannot resolve decades of female subordination by turning the tables and making men subordinate, but by ensuring society accepts total equality. And the LGBT community must not aim to make such people take priority over heterosexual people, but instead to aim for the equal rights of people of all sexual orientations.

However, the government prefer instead to pussyfoot around with political correctness. It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly intelligent people with superb educations end up in the cabinet, and yet end up behaving like buffoons.

Maybe one day they'll get it.