Silver linings

There's a lot to feel anxious about at the moment. My daily read through some of the headlines on the BBC news site is an important part of the day, because I want to stay informed, but it's also something I need to psyche myself up for: it leaves me feeling depressed and worried and I generally need to follow it up with a can of beer and something mindless and distracting on the TV.

I don't know about you, though, but I also have moments throughout the day when I feel optimistic, encouraged, even quite positive about everything that's going on at the moment. There have been a few articles and comments doing the rounds that have encouraged us to try and look on the brighter side of life during these present troubles, and whilst mine will certainly add nothing revolutionary or radical to the mix, it will serve as a useful reminder (to me at least) that for every cloud...yeah, that.

The impact on the environment 
There are encouraging reports around the world of significant drops in air pollution, reductions in harmful gases going into the environment and the residents of Venice seeing fish in their canals for the first time in generations. A vast reduction in vehicles on the roads and planes in the sky will hopefully give our exhausted planet the vacation it needs from the harmful things that we inflict on it. I bet wildlife all over the world is loving it too: I feel quite emotional when I see the birds, bees and plants being able to get on with their lives without having to survive the usual swarm of humans all around them.

Exercise
Being told that I can only exercise once a day has made me, for the first time in at least twenty five years, exercise once a day. My ambition to emerge from this lockdown with a physique like Anthony Joshua is almost certainly misguided. I might just, however, be a fitter and healthier version of myself.

Keeping your friends close 
For the first time in years, I'm making a deliberate and regular effort to call friends and family. I'm usually rubbish at doing this: I hate talking on the phone, my life gets all too easily consumed by the 'here and now', and I take the people who are closest to me for granted, assuming that they'll always be there and that "I can always call them tomorrow." Now, though, I hate the fact that they I can't see them or that they might be sick or lonely. I love these people. Coronavirus has helped me to actually do something about it.

Gratitiude for my job 
It saddens me that I no longer get to see the class of children whose year with me was so abruptly halted. It saddens me that I can't go to work and do the job that I have grown to love. I'm also enormously grateful that I do a job which makes a real difference to people's lives, and I thank God that I have a salary which has so far been protected throughout this crisis. And I pray that He will watch over and provide for those who are less fortunate.

Gratitude for my family 
There have been moments when my wife and son have driven me to distraction over the past couple of weeks, and there will be many more such moments. I also wouldn't be without them right now for anything in the world. I appreciate their personalities, temperaments, strengths and skills a whole lot more as we spend each day supporting each other through this period of lockdown. I'll try to remember all of this when life gets back to normal.

A new appreciation for others 
It goes without saying how much admiration we all have for the medics, scientists and emergency services who are on the front line and working tirelessly to keep us safe. But how much respect did we previously give to cleaners, supermarket workers and delivery drivers? When we eventually beat this thing, their contribution will have been as important as anyone's. If this virus teaches us to be a bit less snooty and a bit more appreciative of those who do these jobs, then it will have done all of us a great service.

Ubuntu 
I came across this South African word the other day. It means 'I am because of you'. Or, as Simba sings to his daughter Kiara in The Lion King 2, "We are more than we are, We are One." So much of the hostility, vitriol and hatred that we've seen in recent years seems to spring from an individualistic mentality: to hell with the rest of you, I'm only looking out for myself/my family/my tribe. It's an insidious and poisonous ideology. Christianity has been teaching us for over two thousand years to love our neighbour, whoever he or she might be. Not because I want to make some noble act of sacrifice that will diminish me and enhance someone else, but because I can only ever be as prosperous, happy and healthy as I seek to make others. We're all making sacrifices at the moment for the benefit of other people. If we can carry on doing so after all of this has come to pass, then we'll have made a better world for everyone.          

  

Help the Aged

I'm trying to look after my elderly neighbours. Mostly because it's the right thing to do, and because they'll have made sacrifices in their past that I've benefited from.

Partly, however, because doing so can be a very amusing experience: I've changed names and home numbers to protect my brilliant neighbours.

Conversation with number 44: 

"Hello?"

"Hello, it's Joe at number 38."

"Who?"

"Joe. At number 38. Claire's husband?"

"I thought they sold and packed up years ago!"

"Err...no. Still here."

"Hold on a minute (shuffles off, conversation overheard with wife) "Gladys, it's Joe. Didn't they sell up years ago?" 

"No, I spoke to her last week!" 

"Oh never mind. (Back to me) Hello?"

"Yes, hello."

"You're right, it is Joe!"

"Yes...yes...I am. Anyway, how are you keeping?"

"Fine thank you. Absolutely fine."

"That's great. We were just wondering if you needed anything from the supermarket?"

"Did I speak to your wife at the bus stop the other day?"

"Err...possibly."

"Only someone started talking to me at the bus stop. She was very friendly but I didn't know who she was!"

"Right..."

"She was standing outside the front door to number 38."

"Okay...probably Claire then. I hope so anyway."

"Do apologise to her for me won't you!"

"I will. Anyway, do you need any shopping?"

"Hold on  (shuffles off again)    Gladys, do we need anything?" 

"Milk. Whole milk. Four pints please." 

"Okay  (back to me)  Four pints of whole milk please, Joe."

"No problem at all. Anything else?"

"No that's all. Very kind of you!"

"Absolutely fine. I'll leave it in your porch."

"Are you sure you didn't move?"

"No, definitely not. Been here eight years now."

"Well I never. Bye Joe."

"Goodbye, take care."



Conversation with number 42 

(Dorothy is in her 80s. Lovely lady, fantastic neighbour. Also a bit hard of hearing.) 

"HELLO?"

"Hi Dorothy, it's Joe from next door. I was just wondering..."

"NOW LISTEN. YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING ON HOLIDAY ANY MORE ARE YOU?"

"Err...probably not, no."

"ONLY IF YOU WERE I'D BE VERY HAPPY TO LOOK AFTER THE CAT AGAIN."

"Thank you Dorothy, that's really kind, but I'm pretty sure that we won't..."

"IT'S NO TROUBLE!"

"I know Dorothy, I don't know what we'd do without you, you've always..."

"I LOVE YOUR CAT!"

"Yes, I know. Far more than I do."

"SORRY??"

"Nothing, anyway Dorothy, the reason I called was..."

"HAVE YOU SEEN THAT SQUIRREL??"

"What?"

"THERE'S A SQUIRREL HOPPING AROUND IN THE GARDEN! IT'S EVER SO CUTE!"

"I did see it yes."

"I LOVE SQUIRRELS!"

"Yes, they're quite nice aren't they."

"I LOVE ALL ANIMALS!"

"Yes, me too...well, sometimes...anyway, Dorothy, do you need any shopping?"

"SORRY?"

"SHOPPING DOROTHY. DO YOU NEED ANYTHING FROM THE SUPERMARKET?"

"YOU KNOW WHAT, LET ME GO AND GET ARTHUR. I CAN'T REALLY HEAR YOU!"




Shopping was - eventually - safely delivered to both houses. Absolute legends, both of them. If I'm still around in 2065, I hope I'm as fun and full of life as they are!

What albums can teach us

Some of the most iconic album covers of the past few decades can teach us all we need to know about responsible behaviour during the Coronavirus crisis.

Very irresponsible. Social distancing should be observed at all times.

This is just ridiculous. You may as well be at a Trump press conference.

Much better gentlemen, well done. A great idea to use the stripes on a zebra crossing to help keep two metres apart.

Well done boys, all staying at home. You might just want to check that Liam isn't dead.

Absolutely not. We shouldn't be trying to lick each other at the present time, even if your tongue is so severely deformed.

Don't be fooled. It's very unlikely that she'd be examining you if you were to get sick.

Parents, I know that you want to do the best job that you can with home-schooling but please leave swimming lessons to the professionals. Also, there are less dramatic ways of teaching them about money.

Gay thoughts!

The account of creation in Genesis is one passage of the Bible that is often used to argue against homosexual equality. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. God created them male and female. For a man to be attracted to a man, or a woman to a woman, is an act of sinful rebellion against God’s design for us, therefore such people need to repent and change their behaviour before they can be saved. And if we do welcome them into the church, we can’t possibly allow them into positions of leadership or authority before they’ve either committed to celibacy or been ‘converted’ to heterosexual practice. Right?

Well…no, I don’t think it is. 

I want to clarify my own thoughts and opinions about this, partly for the sake of integrity and partly to welcome the challenge of those who may feel differently. I don’t think I’m going to entirely please either side of the debate, but I want to be honest about where I’m ‘at’. So here goes. 

Firstly… God didn’t make us to be gay. 

It wasn’t part of our original design, it’s not how we reproduce and it’s not the way our bodies are made. His intention was for sexual relations to take place between a man and a woman. Homosexual attraction and homosexual relationships are an indication that somewhere along the line, something has gone wrong.

But hold on a minute. Let’s look a bit more closely at Genesis 1-3 and see what else happened that God didn’t intend. If you and I are going to argue against homosexuality because it wasn’t part of God’s original plan, then we must also acknowledge: 

• That we should all be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30) 

• We shouldn’t be alone (Genesis 2:18) 

• We shouldn’t be wearing any clothes (2:25) 

• Women shouldn’t experience pain and discomfort during child-birth (3:16) 

• Men shouldn’t find providing food for themselves and their families a difficult, arduous task (3:17) 

• We shouldn’t even understand the difference between good and evil (3:22)

It seems to me that whilst homosexual attraction is one indication that we’ve fallen, it’s one of many. The Bible repeatedly teaches us not to judge each other because we’re all sinful and only God can judge. If we insist, however, that some individuals need to change something as personal and fundamental to them as their sexual orientation before they can truly be accepted by God, then there are some pretty drastic changes that we all need to make: stop wearing clothes; stop eating meat; stop finding work difficult. In fact, unless you’re an extrovert nudist vegetarian living off a huge inheritance then you can’t possibly be right with God. 

In the fallen, post-Eden world that we live in, surely the dial has been reset? After sin entered the world it simply wasn’t possible for us to get back to what God had originally intended. Or at least not in this life. Child-birth will always be hard. We’ll always feel shame and embarrassment about our naked bodies. And some people will always be gay. 

Is it necessary then for gay people to suppress or inhibit their natural instincts? Most Christians nowadays understand that it’s generally not possible to reset or ‘heal’ homosexuality, but argue that those who have such urges should commit themselves to a celibate life, because gay sex is sinful. Is this right? 

I’ve thought long and hard about this and I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two ways of addressing the question: by the Word and by the Spirit. More specifically, by looking at what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, and (alongside this) by prayerfully allowing the Spirit of God within me to shape and direct my thoughts: essentially to do what Paul advises in Philippians 4:8 – ‘Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things.’   

The Word

Scripture doesn’t have very many references to homosexuality at all. It isn’t specifically mentioned once by Jesus, whereas greed, hypocrisy, envy and hatred are frequently lambasted. This alone should give us reason to stop and think. There are only four explicit references in the Bible; two in the Old Testament and two in the New. 

Genesis 19: 4-8

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

Sodom was a deeply sinful, wicked place which was destroyed by God because He couldn’t find (in a city of many thousands) even ten righteous people living there. These verses have been used to show that the Sodomites’ homosexual urges are indicative of how sinful they were. That doesn’t sit right with me. Is homosexuality really the problem here? What these men want to do is commit gang rape. They want to break into another person’s house and force his guests to have sex with them. Furthermore, whilst the master of the house is horrified at the thought that his esteemed guests might be subjected to this, he seems entirely at ease with the prospect of his daughters being savaged and penetrated. 

What is the problem here? What is it that offends us? Is it the fact that some of these people have homosexual urges? Or is it instead the rape, violence, mob rule and misogyny.    

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.’ 

‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’ 

This would appear to be quite unequivocal. These are two of many laws and decrees that were given to the Israelites at a time when they were in exile, seeking the Promised Land and seeking to establish themselves as a distinct, recognised and respected ethnic group. There’s no escaping the fact that God did not want His people to engage in homosexual relationships at this time, and this should give all of us reason to pause: it does reinforce the fact that same-sex relationships are not what God originally intended and whatever conclusions we come to about this, none of us should be flippant or dismissive either in our own opinions or in our attitudes to those we disagree with.

There are a few thoughts I’ve had about these verses. Firstly, I’ve yet to come across a convincing argument as to why some of these Old Testament rules should still be followed rigidly whilst others can be ignored and over-looked. If it is detestable for two men to have sexual relations then shouldn’t we also be avoiding clothing made of two different kinds of material, or making sure that we don’t plant two different kinds of seed in the same field? 

Secondly, if it is right for us to follow these commands about homosexuality, then presumably we should be doing everything that they tell us to, and in the case of Leviticus 20:13 that includes the punishment as well. We should be putting gays to death. No Christian worthy of the name would dream of trying to enforce this, yet it doesn’t seem entirely consistent to argue that we should adhere rigidly to the law but ignore the specified punishment.

Thirdly, and most importantly, we can’t forget what the New Testament teaches us about the law. The Old Testament law shows us just how far we fall short of God’s perfect standards because we can never hope to live up to them. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t really try, but as Paul says in Romans: ‘No-one will be declared righteous…by observing the law’. Why? Because in trying to do so we will not only inevitably fail, but we will also become competitive and judgemental towards each other in a way that won’t promote Christian love and unity. As Jesus replied to the law expert in Matthew’s gospel: 

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”      

If we come across someone living in a homosexual relationship who is doing their level best to please the Lord by following these two commandments, is it really our place to tell them that they’re not right before God?  

Romans 1: 26-27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 

I think we fall into a trap when we take this out of context. We need to have some awareness both of the historical context, and also the holistic message of Romans. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16? ‘All Scripture is God-breathed…’. Note the very first word. All Scripture. Let’s not focus our Christian ideology on one or two verses that happen to chime with our own opinions. 

I won’t go into much detail about the history, but suffice to say that first century Rome was a hot-bed of immorality, sexual and otherwise. Much of this wickedness is mentioned throughout the first chapter of Romans: evil, greed, murder, arrogance, ruthlessness… it’s likely that homosexual acts were one of the signs of moral deprivation, but they were one of many and they were carried out in an attitude of shameful decadence and reckless hedonism. Is it fair to equate this with same-sex relationships that are genuinely respectful, loving and committed? 

Also, we cannot ignore the very first verse of Romans chapter 2 when thinking about this passage: ‘You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.’  

   

The use of the present tense is interesting. It’s not just that we did the same things. We do them! We are doing them. God’s wrath is also evident in our lives. As seen in Genesis 1-3, none of us live lives in keeping with His original intentions. We too, whether gay or straight, can be envious, boastful, arrogant…and sexually immoral. We all fall short! We confess our sins and rely on His grace. We will however put our own relationship with God at risk if we condemn others for the signs of His wrath in their lives, but choose to ignore those which are evident in our own. 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 

There is very little ambiguity here. For someone who is instinctively opposed to the idea that people in homosexual relationships cannot be included in God’s family, I find this the most challenging of the four references in Scripture. Paul states quite explicitly that ‘men who have sex with men’ will not inherit the kingdom. This is a reminder to me that, at the very least, I need to respect the faithfulness and resolve of my fellow-Christians who maintain a ‘traditional’ view on this: it’s not an easy stand to make and it’s not a popular one in contemporary society. I admire their courage and I need to acknowledge to them, and to myself, that I could be wrong.

There are a few observations and thoughts that I’ve had about this passage:

• Paul states his views unequivocally in other parts of his letters too: 1 Timothy 2:12 is a classic example: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent’. Also 2 Thessalonians 2:9 – “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” There are few who would argue that these teachings should be literally applied in the developed 21st century world. All Scripture is divinely inspired, but surely if we believe that our Bibles are the living word of God then that implies that their truths can adapt and renew themselves according to the historical, social and cultural environment that they find themselves in. That’s what living things do. 

• This verse appears to have been translated slightly differently over the years. The King James version has ‘fornicators’ instead of ‘sexually immoral’, (something that would no doubt concern many of us) and ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ is used instead of ‘men who have sex with men’. An earlier version of the NIV states that it is ‘homosexual offenders’ who will not inherit. These subtle differences in translation are not conclusive, but I think we should at least consider them when making our minds up. 

• Why only ‘men who have sex with men’? Why is there no mention of female same-sex relationships? If we’re going to insist on applying this literally then it’s only relevant for men. For women there is no problem. 

• Elsewhere in his letters, Paul lists the type of behaviours that displease God: Galatians 5:19-21 and Colossians 3:5-9 are two such references. The more general reference to ‘sexual immorality’ is often used. These verses in Corinthians are the only ones that reference homosexuality. That doesn’t mean we ignore them, but it does perhaps point to the fact that we shouldn’t become too fixated on this one sparsely referenced issue. 

• Again, the context of these verses shouldn’t be ignored. In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul’s overall purpose is to encourage the Corinthians not to take each other to court. Why would he include in this passage a list of behaviours that is displeasing to God? Maybe it is to remind the Corinthians that God is the only judge, and that they shouldn’t need to rely on earthly judges to settle their scores. Is it possible that some amongst the community of believers in Corinth were suing people who were involved in same-sex relationships?  And is it possible that Paul’s message to the church was essentially…don’t worry about it. If they truly are ‘offenders’ or ‘abusers’, then God will know and He will judge accordingly. It’s not your job to do so, because you’ll almost certainly get it wrong. 

The Spirit 

It’s a false distinction, of course. The Spirit and the Word are mentioned together at the very beginning of the Bible and they work together throughout Scripture and throughout human history. There’s no essential difference between them. Our understanding of the Spirit comes from the Bible, but the Bible itself tells us that knowing the Word of God is more than just an intellectual exercise in reading, memorising and studying. When the Lord speaks in Jeremiah 31:33, He says (of the new covenant) that: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.”  If you and I have accepted Jesus as our Lord and Saviour; if we both read and listen to His words; and if we are prayerful and humble in our endeavours, then we should feel able to trust our emotions and instincts. It isn’t always necessary to be able to quote chapter and verse. His law is written on your heart. So what does your heart tell you? What does mine tell me? 

It reminds me of close friends from years gone by who have committed their lives to God and loved Him sincerely, then been struck down by doubt, depression, loneliness and emotional breakdown because of the extreme guilt and confusion they felt about their sexual orientation. After difficult and painful journeys, these individuals have committed themselves to loving same-sex relationships. Who am I to judge? Who am I to tell them that their lives are unworthy of the Lord when I’ve experienced nothing of their pain and have turned a wilfully blind eye to the myriad ways in which my own life falls short? 

It persuades me that one of the viewpoints often expressed in evangelical circles nowadays – that gay and lesbian people are welcomed and loved in the Church but, in order to be truly right with God (in order to be really loved) they must renounce same-sex relationships and live celibate lives – doesn’t sit quite right. When my wife and I got married I promised to love her unconditionally and unreservedly. You can’t enter into a truly loving marriage by saying - “In sickness and in health, from this day forward, for better or worse: BUT… after a few years have passed I expect you to have given up this… to have started behaving in this way… to have improved in this area. If you haven’t managed it then I might reconsider my position.”  It just doesn’t work! When Jesus met people He loved them unconditionally. They knew that and because they knew it, some of them did change their behaviour. But you can’t start with the conditions and reservations: it’s not genuine love if you do. 

It tells me that throughout history, some Christians have found themselves on the wrong side of the argument when they have sought to restrict other people’s rights and freedoms, not because of any immoral or criminal behaviour, but because of an unavoidable and unchangeable aspect of their identity. Many Christians believed that the Bible should have been translated from Latin, but some did not. Most believed that slavery should be abolished, but some did not. Most believed that education should be made available to all, but some did not. I’d like to be on the right side of the argument on this one.

And it helps to focus my mind, ultimately on the fact that God is love. And that if you love, you know God. Where there is hatred and fear, we can be confident that God is absent, but wherever there is love – real love – we can know that He is present. Who is more loving? The person who sleeps around and leaves a trail of hurt, confused partners in their wake? The married heterosexual who neglects their spouse, deliberately tries to undermine them, maybe is even unfaithful to them? Or is it the homosexual who loves their partner with self-sacrifice and commitment? It’s an easy answer as far as I’m concerned. 

Homosexuality is not what God intended. Adam and Eve makes scientific, physiological, cultural and spiritual sense. But the extent of our Fall is unimaginably huge in its size and scope. The damage that has been done to humankind and to creation, from generation to generation, is tragic, immense and irrecoverable. That is, apart from the life and death of one Man. A Man whose life (and death) was all about one thing: love. One Man who loved the world so much that he put Himself through the most physically, spiritually and emotionally painful death that there has ever been. It wasn’t judgemental or conditional love, but one that was higher and wider and deeper than we could possibly comprehend. 

So let’s try to love each other in the same way. Let’s not place restrictions or conditions or reservations on it. It’s not our place to judge and we’re very likely to get ourselves into a whole lot of trouble if we do. If we do this then I believe we’ll be living the lives that God wants us to, which will make all of us – according to the traditional meaning of the word – a lot more gay!   

             

    

     

Tax doesn't have to be taxing!

Imagine for a moment that there is a big, important job that needs doing. It’s not going to be easy and will take quite a lot of time, effort and commitment. The job is offered to two different people. They both outwardly express a willingness to take on the responsibility and get the work done, but their approach and attitude varies considerably.

Person A (can’t think of a better name but ‘Selfie Feet’ randomly springs to mind) makes their offer in this way:

“If I take on this job then I will immediately pass the buck and ensure that the real work is done by somebody else. Many people will be relying on me to do the job competently, and many will lose out when I don’t, but I don’t really care about this. The only thing that matters is that if things go well I can, by a vicarious sleight of hand, claim all the credit for myself, whereas if things go badly I will quite reasonably blame someone else. It’s all about having the opportunity to scapegoat as far as I’m concerned.”

Person B on the other hand (any number of names would work, but not Theresa, Boris or Dave. Definitely not those) has this to say:

“I’ll take on this job and take on all the responsibility for it. I’ll need some help and support from others, but hopefully once the job is done those same people will benefit from it. And when the work’s been completed you’ll have the chance to judge for yourself whether or not I did a good job.”

Who would you have more respect for? Who would you prefer to give the job to? It seems pretty clear to me that A is all about the image and the kudos, whereas B is willing to put his/her head above the parapet, get the job done and take responsibility for the outcome.

Lately I’ve had taxes on my mind (it’s all rock and roll at our house, believe me). They’ve been on my mind all the more since reading this excellent article in The Guardian. The Conservative party want to convince us all that tax is a burden and should be reduced as much as possible. They are proposing cutting corporation tax to 17%, which would be one of the lowest rates in the developed world. I think I have a basic grasp of the ideology: low tax rates are needed to attract and keep the entrepreneurs, innovators, wealth-creators and money-makers whose work benefits us all and whose absence would plunge Britain into a Third-World state of poverty and despair.

The problem is, it just doesn’t seem to be true. As the Guardian article makes clear, the wealthiest Swedes are not leaving their country in droves despite having a top income tax rate of 60%, because they understand that this gives them great state welfare and ensures that future generations receive a great education. In Germany (where their economy is even bigger than Britain’s which has THE FIFTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD DIDN’T YOU KNOW!!!) the rate is 30%, and their infrastructure is the envy of Europe.

So why does the Conservative party persist with this myth that tax is a bad thing? Why keep arguing and arguing that higher tax rates don’t bring any benefits when they quite clearly do, in all sorts of different ways?

Honestly I can think of only one explanation: like Person A, they just want to duck the responsibility. They want to be able to blame someone else when it all goes wrong.

Take the NHS as one example. When the whole thing is privatised and the childish, immature notion of providing good healthcare for everyone regardless of their income has finally been put to bed, the Conservatives will quite legitimately be able to blame other people for any mishaps or mistakes. “Don’t blame us!” they’ll say. “You don’t pay us any tax for this anymore! Talk to your provider. Talk to your insurance company. It’s all their fault.”

Similar things would happen in education. When we have nothing but free-schools and academy chains (and I’m very suspicious that the savage cuts are a backdoor attempt to continue the policy of getting rid of all state schools) then the government of the day will absolve themselves of all responsibility for educational standards. Shrink the state and you shrink its accountability too.

A braver government would not cut taxes. A more courageous, caring and forward-thinking government would, like Person B, say to its citizens: “We’re not passing the buck to anyone. Give us the money to do these things for you, then judge us by the results. If you don’t like what you get, then vote for someone else.”

There are lots of things to consider when we vote on June 8^th. A vote for the Conservatives would, in my view, be a mistake. And one of many reasons for that is their ongoing refusal to have the guts to take responsibility.        

The Gospel according to 294 (almost entirely Conservative) MPs

“Give to everyone who asks you...unless they happen to be a foreigner. Those who were not born on the same patch of land as you are far less deserving of charity.”

“Do to others as you would have them do to you. If, however, you are financially comfortable and live in a politically stable country then of course this doesn’t apply. After all, the circumstances of your own birth were entirely down to your own hard work and diligent planning.”

“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Unless a few national newspapers suggest that there might be a small possibility that one or two of them are trying to take advantage of your generosity. This absolves you of all responsibility to all of them. Scrounging bastards.”

“But a Samaritan, as he travelled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he said ‘I must not, on any account, do anything to help this man. His situation is unfortunate but if I stop to heal his wounds it will only encourage the thieves! If they think that there are good people in the world who might actually care then they’ll feel justified in robbing more people! No no...far better to give a few quid to charity. That way someone else can get their hands dirty.”

People were also bringing babies to Jesus. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me.” Then he looked one of them in the eye and said “Clearly you are not a child. I specifically said little children and you must be at least twelve.  Also, you have no visible scars or signs of trauma, therefore you must be lying to us all. Piss off.”

Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you a drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?”

And the King will reply: “No you didn’t do any of these things, and this is why I’m so pleased with you! Thousands died because you chose instead to do what was politically expedient, or what your mates told you to do, or because you were scared of what Rupert Murdoch and Paul Dacre might write about you. You’re exactly my kind of people! Hurrah!!” 

See Luke 6:30-35, Luke 10: 30-37, Luke 18:15-17, and Matthew 25:31-46 for original source material.  

Corin

My little boy, Corin Walter Shepherd, was born at 7.37pm on Wednesday 17^th September 2014.

I’ll remember a number of things from the final few hours that led up to his birth and the few hours that followed. The moment that I saw him for the very first time is one that will, of course, never be forgotten. My dear wife had already endured a marathon and was exhausted when the time came to push. She tried and tried to get him out but nothing was happening. The doctor had a look and told us that he was facing the wrong way and was unlikely to be coming out without a bit of help. We headed down to theatre where we were told that they would try to use the forceps to encourage him along, and if that failed then it would be a caesarean section. It was at this point I convinced myself that something was going to go wrong: his heart-beat would stop; he’d be injured in some way; he’d come out not breathing; he’d have two heads. I remember sitting alongside my wife as she lay on the operating table. I smiled at her, told her everything was going to be fine. She’d been through so much more than I had and for her sake I wanted to appear as calm and confident as I possibly could. Inside I was a mess.

I needn’t have worried. After a couple of twists and pulls, Corin made his grand entrance. He was by far the loudest person in the room! Proudly announcing his arrival into the world, he turned to look at me with a very cross face, rebuking me for doubting that he was ever going to be less than perfect. Daddy! Daddy! How little faith you have! I am Corin, hear me roar!! A few minutes later I think he had forgiven me, as I held him in my arms and walked him round the operating theatre. Quiet and content, his eyes darted around the room, taking it all in. Calmly accepting this strange new world.

As intense and draining and joyful as all of this was, it wasn’t until a few hours later that the wonderful gift and privilege of parenthood really hit me. I’d been unable to think straight for some time, but driving home by myself later that night, having left my new family safe in a hospital bed, I was calm and quiet enough to be able to hear a whisper. A profound, encouraging, life-affirming whisper.

He’s not yours.

It made me frown too. He’s not yours. What do you mean? I think you’ll find that he is! I’ll get all Jeremy Kyle on your ass if I need to!

He’s not yours.

So whose is he then??

He’s mine.

And who exactly might you be?

I think you know.

And yes, I did. The conversations that I’d had with God over the past few days had been panicked, one-way monologues. I’d forgotten what it was like to listen to Him, but in the quiet of my car there was no mistaking His voice. And what He was saying made perfect sense.

We always talk about our children. This is my son. My daughter. These children are mine. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I’ve called Corin my boy many times already and will continue to do so. You are their parent and primary carer, more responsible to them than any other human being, so it’s quite normal to think of them as yours.

They’re not though. Not really. They, like all the billions and billions of people in the world, are God’s. They are His children just like we all are. Being a parent is a precious, precious gift and a wonderful thing. Through an act of love, my wife and I have created a person. For as long we are able we get to care intimately for another human being. Our love for him is as strong as any human love possibly could be. Over and above any other person we are responsible for his safety and well-being. We get to nurture him, teach, encourage, and protect him. He will probably be the best thing that will ever happen to us.

But we don’t have any rights of ownership. He’s not ours. We don’t have the right to impose our preferences or viewpoints on him. We don’t have the right to force him to make choices, pursue relationships or careers that we think are the right ones. We don’t have the right to try and turn him into the person that we think he should be.

Our only aim, and our only prayer, is that every day of his life he will know the love of his Heavenly Father, and that he will follow the path that that Daddy – the Daddy who knew all along that he was going to be perfect – has laid out for him. And if my wife and I can be signposts along the way then we will have done our duty in this wonderful gift called parenthood.