General Election 2010 - Where's the beef?

And so we are nearing the last lap of the General Election 2010. Polls are topsy turvy with the possibility of a hung/balanced election very much alive.

The outcome that seems to be fading fast however is that of a Labour Government. The final destruction of the hopes of 1997 moves ever closer. It is not as if Labour is without achievement. For years the economy grew albeit with the help of an unsustainable housing bomb accompanied by easy credit. But when it all went wrong, one could not help feeling sorry for Brown given that to a fair extent he was the victim of events across the Atlantic with Cowboy George's administration of incompetence. Sure, Brown had applied light touch regulation of the banking sector but in this he had been supported by a Conservative Party which favoured yet lighter touch regulation, not surprising from the political party which had done more for casino banking than Casinova had done for promiscuity.

But surely the health service is better than in 1997. I recall people lying for hours in corridors back in the days of Conservative rule. Now for example we see many more nurses than in those days and positive initiatives concerning areas such as cancer care. And in education there is also a good story to tell. On the other hand the decimation of social housing which ranks among the worst of Thatcher's crimes has hardly been reversed.

These things are good. Yet New Labour looks morally bankrupt. In part this is down to the tragedy of boneless wonder MPs following Blair into the lobbies to support his disastrous Iraq War. In part it is due to the sabotaging of Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy. In part it is due to an authoritarianism which has filled the prisons to breaking point and run roughshod over civil liberties. In part it is down to an overwhelming infatuation with the super rich which among other things has turned London into a tax haven for foreign oligarchs.

In all of this Gordon Brown has to take his share of the blame. Yet he does not deserve some of the ridicule that has been directed at him. Insinuations firstly from George Osborne and then from blogger Guido Fawkes regarding his mental health have been cruelly and unjustly used by too many as a stick with which to beat Brown. Even the Conservative campaign which has concentrated on turning Brown into a hate figure, aped in recent days by the Liberal Democrats, are not to the credit of those involved. Indeed Brown's conduct during this General Election shows him to be a bigger man than his taunters.

Still the good days of 1997 are becoming a distant memory for Labour even if the Conservatives have hardly sealed the deal for them to be greeted as triumphant liberators of the grateful British people.

In part this is because they show little sign of having changed. Scratch their proclamations and there is still the same old values that devastated the life of the nation for 18 dreadful years. Strong on invective, they offer precious little of a plan for the future, relying on slogans such as the "Big Society" whose meaning they have utterly failed to explain. Maybe it is but a cover for a policy in which the state is rolled back and public expenditure cuts are unleashed with the ferocity of the 1980s.

And there lies a problem for all the parties. None of them are truly prepared to squeeze the rich till the pips squeak for each party is itself in thrall to the sort of benefactors who would lose from such a policy. All are committed to the type of neo liberal economics which cries out for the sort of public expenditure cuts that will dwarf those of the 1980s. Yet whilst there has been a bit of a debate as to when deficit reduction should begin, none of the major three parties have told us in any meaningful way where the cuts would come. Sure we have the usual posturings about waste and of course there is always some, yet we lack leaders with the moral courage to say where the axe will land. The cry that should go out to every party representative, is that question once put by Walter Mondale when seeking the Presidency of the USA;

"Where's the beef?"

And the painful reality is that we have three party leaders who in response to that question merit a Ph.D in evasion.

Yet the question must be answered. For if it is not answered a sense of betrayal and ultimately fury will sweep the land as people realise that they have been hoodwinked. And that fury will be even greater than can at present be imagined if swingeing cuts in things that matter to people come from a government with the seats to deliver but only as a result of a totally undemocratic, unrepresentative electoral system.

Indeed this is the General Election which has treated the public as fools. Years ago The WHO sang "We won't be fooled again." Well that is precisely what has happened. Leadership debates have had precious little to do with democracy. The emphasis on style and trivia has reduced the General Election to 2010 to a pale replica of X Factor. Campaigning and exploring the issue within each community has given way to a puerile debate on who won the last debate, who got the best punchlines in and what changes in makeup are required.

All of this may suit the Establishment. It may suit those who dread the thought of elections being about the possibility of real rather than synthetic change. But it makes fool of us!

10 days to go. We are being fooled again. It is time to demand;

"Where is the beef?"

For this General election has absolutely no validity if we do not get an answer to that question. Surely, the time has come for substance rather than style to take central stage.

Cameron's "Common People."

Of course it is satire and exagerated but it has a fair bit of truth. Anyhow, listen to a version of Pulp based around Tory leader David Cameron. And then do the decent thing on May 6th.



And don't forget to pass the message on!

Hope in the Lamb - An Easter 4 Yr C sermon based on John 10: 11-20 and Rev 7: 9-17

The Revelation of St John probably creates more varied reactions than any book in our scriptures. Too often it has been the happy hunting ground of crackpots who see it as some sort of detailed telling of the future. These include those who stand in the way of peace and justice in the Middle East as if they could bring forward the 2nd coming. It includes also those carried away by a literalist rapture theology seeing the care of this world as irrelevant for we shall all be rapytured away leaving such joys as driverless cars in some form of ecclesiastical motorway madness. Such an outlook reached something of a peak during the Reagan Presidency when the Secretary of the Interior James Watt suggested that environmental sustainability does not matter as we are in the end times. Well in Britain we may be going through a General election in which issues of world justice and environmental sustainability are not being considered as they ought to be but few in Britains would today talk the language of Watt.

But even before Left Behind books and the likes made some of us nervy of Revelation, there were those who found its contents difficult. Martin Luther described it as "neither apostolic nor prophetic." John Calvin left it as the one book in the New Testament that he did not write a commentary on. A reason for this may be the vivid descriptions of creautres that would not be out of place in a science fiction novel or even Dr Who and taht before coming to the coded language which we stuggle to come to terms with.

More than that, it does not fit the sunnier side of our dispositions. Sure it waxes lyrical about a better world that is to come when tears and suffering shall be no more but the world that we know comes out as a thoroughly depressing place.

But should we balk at that? For in many ways our world is depressing. We may in the main be said to come from relatively comfortable backgrounds. But let me tell you bluntly that the more time I spend in Bideford the more I learn that life for far too many people in this town is a form of Hell. I think in terms not just of familiar problems such as addiction be they to alcohol, drugs or gambling where some suffer terribly whilst others make big money out of that suffering. I think in terms not just of economic insecurity with its consequences for employment, housing that is often woefully inadequate and insecure, and generally being able to live rather than merely exist - and No it gives me no comfort that according to the Sunday Times Rich List the wealthiest 1,000 people found their wealth increasing by an average of 30% last year - all this when others face basic decisions as to skipping a meal or not replacing the shoes with a hole in them! I think not just in terms for those whose relationships are in chaos and who are surrounded on all sides with an avalanche of stress. I think not just of such for there is a list that go on a whole lot longer. Hell is on our doorsteps - just read those reports that suggest a deep malaise of unhappiness on the part of our teenagers in Britain's green and pleasant land!

And go beyond to the world outside. Look to the places where extreme wealth and extreme poverty are within spitting distance of each other. Look to the places where economic power is unleashed to crush hope. Look to the places where military might is used to silence the voices that dare to cry out for justice. Look at the dictators who crush all that gets in their way.

And then consider that St John knew plenty about the forces of Hell. He sees it in the oppressive violence of the Roman Empire where political, religious and economic oppression are all around. And he rails aganst oppression as indeed should we. And dare I say it but his language is not exactly temperate. To him Rome is "Babylon the Great and the mother of all prostitutes" - well even in the current General Election language hasn't gone that far as yet!

But says Revelation, the forces of Hell are ultimately doomed. Indeed Revelation uses the language of joyful relish as it speaks of the fall of that great power, the power that symbolises empire. Divine justice, says Revelation, will ultimately be triumphant. The very role reversal heralded in Mary's Magnificat points us to the potential of a very different reality.

Our Scripture readings today give us clues of the reality of the kingdom of God which ultimately shatters the power of empire.

Firstly that Kingdom is non violent in contrast to the empires of this world. Back in Chapter 5 there has been the invite to the Lion of Judah a traditional phrase with connotations of military might. Yet St John sees instead a Lamb. The hope of the suffering is fulfilled not through might but through the slaughtered lamb. Shock and Awe, a repulsive phrase if ever there was one, is no source of hope. The hope of the suffering is in the one who takes the path of powerlessness emptying himself of all but love.

Secondly the Lamb offers us direction. After all this Lamb who sits at the throne of God is the One through whom the world is made. The Lamb has been slain but lives once more in triumphant resurrection. Through the Lamb, we are offered the path to meaningful living. The Lamb enables new beginnings. For this is the Lamb that has faced death head on and now raised is triupmphant.

Thirdly the opening of the seventh seal reveals those who have suffered, who have come through the ordeal. These are they who are closest to God for in a real sense they have shared in suffering with Christ. For goodness sake God is not neutral on the subject of suffering. God is on the side of those who suffer - period!

Fourthly the multitude spoken of is from every nation. Yes, God is not a quintessentially English gentleman. People of all races and all nations are united in him. That which treats people as lesser is by nature Hellish! Charity law forbids me to tell you that movements such as the BNP which see certain racial groupings as of more worth than others should not be supported by Christians at the ballot box but I will say that to do so and claim to be a follower of Christ is a blasphemy.

And finally, Revelation speaks of the lamb sheltering the multitude and bringing an end to their suffering, guiding them to springs of the water of life. And I ask why. Why? The only answer I can think of is out of love. This is Good Shepherd Sunday. And as our gospel reading reminded us, we have the good shepherd who doesn't go half way but who lays down his very life for you, for you, for you and for me. Because of love. So when the world treats people in an arbitrary and destructive way, there is the hope of the Good Shepherd to sustain us.

So what of us? I suggest that we are alert to every sign of oppressive empire in our lives. Where is the signs of Rome today. Where do we see Rome in political systems, economic systems or even religious systems. And dare we stand against modern day Romes? Dare we stand in solidarity with the Good Shepherd? Dare we live as those who are transformed by the Good Shepherd? And dare we proclaim the good news of the Good Shepherd in whom we place our hope against all the Romes that create such devastation!

General Election 2010 - An exercise in fraud!

I love General Elections. But so far in this one, hasn't there been a lot of tripe spoken?

I am not just going on about that eccentric UKIP manifesto which would provide Alf Garnett with plenty a wet dream with aspirations to double the prison population and increase the army by 40% all made possible by leaving the EU - as if it were that easy!

I am thinking more of the main parties. It has been more fun that Yes Minister to watch three political parties wedded to neo liberal economics telling us that we must pay for the crimes of the City with public spending cuts that in Nick Cleggs terms will be "savage" and in Alistair Darling's terms bigger than managed by Thatcher. As to the Conservatives I can imagine much sallivating down the mutton chops of many a member of the party faithful. Actually what is fun is not the promise of public spending cuts but the shyness of all three parties in saying where they would fall. As bashful as a Sunday School teacher would be in revealing the details of a first sexual fumble - that is what Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg have been when it comes to detail. For goodness sake when is somebody going to as the essential question;

"Where's the beef?"

Doubtless our leaders would be struck mute. All of which explains that the important political battle is the one we face in the Autumn.

Like many on Thursday I watched the leader's debate. I can't say I did so enthusiastically as it clearly represents a further step to Presidential politics. Oh for the days when we chose between teams. Even this would be tolerable were it not for the trivialisation of political coverage. To our media it is not a matter of policies so much as who is the best performing seal. Are we moving to the day when instead of the sickening headline, "It was the Sun that won it" we shall have makeup concerns claiming to have tipped the balance of the governance of Britain.

And did not our party leaders play along with this trivialisation? In what strikes me as an importation of Joe the Plumber trivia from the US, we were treated with stories of who the party leaders had met in recent times. Strangely, what these poor assaulted members of the public had in common was that their observations fitted the agenda of the party leader they had met. Best of all was David Cameron's account of meeting a 40 year old black man in Plymouth who had joined the Royal Navy 30 years before. Now I don't recommend too much cynicism on the subject of 10 year olds enlisting in the Royal Navy but only Dave could find such a cabin boy! My advice to members of the public is to blow a raspberry when approached by a man named Gordon, Dave or Nick who happens to be wearing a rosette!

Still we did at least have the Conservatives offering us some sort of Junior X Factor. This surely has to be an own goal. Haven't we suffered enough from trash tv threatening to turn people into stars before spewing them out. The thought of Call me Dave sat next to Katie "Filthy" Price on a Saturday night is enough to drive me to good old fashioned binge drinking!

To the political pundits the big story is the progress made by the Liberal Democrats. I am not sure how much a 90 minute debate can change the game. It may be that Clegg has peaked early like a Mr Steele who once advised a Liberal Conference to go back and prepare for government. We don't know. But is it not sickening to hear the Labour and Conservative Parties telling us we can't have the Liberal Democrats? Only they are allowed to play "Pass the Parcel!" You don't have to be a Liberal Democrat to see that something here stinks like a particularly bad bout of flatulence.

The obscenity is made greater as a result of an opinion poll last night which suggested the Conservatives on 30%, The Liberal Democrats on 30% and Labour on 28%. Listen to the pundits or even feed the figures in Polling Report and you find what this would mean in terms of the composition of the House of Commons. Apparently despite having the lowest share of votes, Labour would be the largest party. And as for the Liberal Democrats, well they would have considerably less than half the number of MPs of either of the other two political parties. And they call that democracy! What a liberty! The reality is that it is a political fraud and fraud on a scale that Madoff would find rather mouthwatering! And that before you get to the question of people supporting minority parties such as Greens or dare I say it UKIP, facing the argument that to vote for their convictions is vote wasting.

So welcome to an election which quite frankly is the biggest fraud in town!

Conversion of Saul - A sermon for Easter 3 Yr C based on Acts 9: 1-6

An interest of mine is the growth of "fundamentalist" religious movements. Each such movement has its own story and some are rather benign whilst others are somewhat malign. Certainly there is a tendency when the world seems to be moving away from the beliefs of a faith community, to respond by portraying that world in a hostile way, even retreating to a bunker mentality.

At this point it is easy to be angry at that which is different. I can't help but find that to be unhealthy. Surely engagement is a more healthy way to live rather than to to be caught up in seeing a world dominated more by threates than possibilities.

I wonder if Saul of Tarsus saw a threatening world around him. A Pharisee who had had been educated by the same Gamaliel who in Acts 5 urged the Council not to kill the apostles brought before them but to wait to see if the Jesus movement was of God or not, Saul had lost patience with such restraint. Possibly struggling with internal doubts, he still took a path often taken by the insecure, of militancy towards those whose way was other than his. And because they threatened the way he had seen God, the world and life, he was eager to persecute the Jesus sect out of existence.A witness to the martyrdom of Stephen, he sought to arrest as many Jesus followers as he could.

And it was this very rage that set him on journey to Damascus "still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord." But that journey was for him to be a turning point. Acts speaks of a light that brought him to the ground. And then it speaks of a voice that says:

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

This is his encounter with the risen Christ. This is the moment when the closed mindedness of the past fall apart. The story later introduces us to a man named Ananias, one of those whose safety Saul had intended to imperil. Yet this man with divine leading gives Saul the care and guidance he needs, ultimately setting him on a very different journey which finds its beginning in baptism and the filling of the Holy Spirit.

But perhaps most remarkably of all, Ananias goes beyond what he is told to do, addressing Saul as "brother" before he has even prayed for him. For far from retreating to a bunker, Ananias takes the risk of initiating a very new relationship indeed.

So what does this story tell us? Sometimes we are tempted to speak of coming to faith as invalidating past understandings. I don't think that is supported in this particular scripture. Indeed two Christian thinkers Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan make a valid point in arguing that Saul is converted not so much from one faith to another as converted "within a tradition." Later in Acts Saul who is of course now Paul, will speak to the Council of being a Jew and even a Pharisee in the present rather than the past tense. He is still those things. Rather his conversion is from being a particularly type of Pharisaic Jew to a being a Jew who saw the hopes of his inherited faith being fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

This story also uses the picture of light. After all this is a story of illumination. Saul may go on making use of the past but he certainly sees the world in a new way. This is a mark of true conversion. An encounter with the Risen Christ will change how we see God, ourselves and the world. and it is something we need to go on and on happening in our lives. For Christ is constantly challenging us on these fronts. I am sick of the perversion of Christianity that says believing in Christ is all that matters when the encounter is one that tugs at our very being. Jim Wallis of the Sojourner Community in America has argued the case for a new conversion of Christians to the cause of the poor. And given that Jesus so often places himself with the poor, the outcasts and the nobodies then we are called to the conversion that places us in solidaity with the outsiders. And so often like John Newton who contined with the practice of the slave trade for a number of years after encountering the Risen Christ in a storm, so to the process for us is ongoing and incomplete.

So this morning we revisit an ancient story, the working out of which has done so much to shape the Christian community. Still this story calls us out of our bunkers, daring us to be challenged to see and experience the world anew. Still it speaks to us of a God who calls and uses the most unlikely of people. Still today, it reminds us that to be touched by God is accompanied by a call of God as to how we live out our lives.

So off your knees. You too are called to move from shallow certainties into God's surprsing possibilities to be the lively people of God who not so much keep a church going as become the signs of the Kingdom of God which is the passion of Christ.

General Election 2010 - And they're off!

So the starting pistol has been fired and the 2010 general Election is under way.

The Conservatives start as favourites and indeed they have hit the ground with more energy rather than the Gordon and the waxworks launch of Labour's campaign outside 10 Downing Street. Yet ultimately it is to be hoped that this campaign will focus on substance rather tha putting on the style.

It is easy to begin this particular campaign with cynicism. Our electoral system is a one that distorts the votes of the electorate in order to ensure that either of the big parties ends up with what Lord Hailsham has described as an "electoral dictatorship." Generally it is accepted that in about 400 constituencies the result is already decided. It is in the other more robustly contested constituencies that the election will be won and lost. If you live in the 400 that are predictable, you would it seems be as well of watching Eastenders on polling day.

The matter is made worse by another aspect of first past the post. This is a system in which the pressure is on not so much to vote for whom you wish to win as to vote against the candidate you least wish to win. At the 2005 General Election I voted tactically and having got the outcome I least desired,I felt just a little manipulated and even dirty.

So let's be clear that the British electoral system is a parody of democracy rather than the real thing. But still I guess that there are issues that Christians should be considering. Given that our Lord suggests that what we do for the lowest in society we do for him, I suggest that we are called to a preferential option for the poor. It is the effect on those at the bottom of the pile that matters most. So I enter this election looking at what the various political parties have to offer to the unemployed, the low paid and the inadequately housed. Any political party that fails on these counts is unworthy of be granted the leadership of the nation. Issues such as educationa and health provision should also be at the heart of deliberations.

Matters of liberty should also be taken seriously. The current government has at times come over as excessively authoritarian. Its efforts at 90 day detention orders seem to me to have threatened liberties in an unnacceptable way. The prospect of Gary Mckinnon being handed over to the US showed scant regard for the wellbeing of a British citizen given the propensity of the US to give prison sentences that sound as if taken out of a telephone book. An issue to be considered is the danger of an over might state ruling over us.

Peace issues will also be important. The war against Iraq that emanates from the lies of Tony Blair and the acquiescence of much of the political elite was a dark page in our history. For the life of me I cannot see the merit in the Afghanistan War which is supported by the three major parties. Neither can I see any use today if ever in maintaining Trident yet the Labour and Conservative parties support such a course of action whilst the Liberal Democrats seem to be astride the fence.

The economy seems likely to dominate. So much damage has been done by so few! Now we need to consider whether we are to recreate a more nuanced form of that which has failed us or whether we are to consider the challenge of a very different base for our economic activities. All three parties are committed to major public expenditure cuts that will dwarf the horrors of the Thatcher years. We need to question whether this is necessary and if it is to raise the question as to where the cuts will fall. Just as the political parties are hiding behind a revew regarding university fees, they seem at present less than upfront on this matter of cuts.

Thess issue are amongst those at the fore of the questions that need to be asked in this campaign. Every candidate needs to be pressed as to where they stand and their accountability should not be sacrificed to the altar of presidential debates between the leaders. We need MPs with a bit of gumption rather than adoring fan clubs for the smooth individuals who are as champion jousters.

Each Saturday this blog will review how the campaign is going. But as you make up your minds on the issue let one thing be clear - the BNP are not an acceptable option for any human being let alone any Christian. Their race and religious hate is as pernicious vomit that corrupts any hope of building a decent society. If you can make your minds up on nothing else, then do all you can to expose this nasty bunch of hate mongers for that which they are.

The starting pistol os off. Let the battle of ideas commence!

Surprise! - A sermon for Easter Day based on Luke 24: 1-12

It's a long time ago but there was a time when my son didn't care for football. These were days when the moment I sat down to watch a match, he would plead with me to turn it off so that he could watch a Disney film. And the favourite Disney film was "The Lion King."

In that film there is much sadness but at the end when Simba comes into his kingdom, there is a wonderful moment when the landscape changes from a dull grey into multi coloured beauty. I guess the reason is to convey the message that things are changing from dull despair to bright hope.

I often think of that film when contemplating Easter. On Good Friday, there is a hopeless despair. Dreams have been shattered and the love of power has seemed to shatter the powerless love that Jesus has embodied. All would seem to be lost. And for a people who have not come out from the other side of Easter, the earth is truly a bleak place.

Easter Day is a day of surprise. Not in the trivial sense with Cilla Black emerging to declare in that irritating accent "Surprise! Surprise!" Far from it! Here the surprises are bigger and more than that, they are earthchanging.

So let's see what happens. Luke tells us of a group of women returning to complete the necessary processes concerning the burial of Jesus. They go to this unpleasant task with no joy or expectation. On arriving they found the stone has been removed from the entrance to the tomb. "Grave robbers" might well be their first thought. As if things aren't bad enough! Entering the tomb doubtless filled with apprehension, they find no body but mysterious strangers. And now comes a message:

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again."

Wow! That's told them! But it is certainly a lot to take on board. It certainly is not what they expected and quite frankly it is not what we would expect in their situation. Is it no a case of being a message that is too good to be true? Still Luke does not tell us what went on in their minds but he does tell us that they went back to tell what they had witnessed to their community including the 11 remaining disciples. And what of them? They can't believe it - after all the testimony of women was of little worth. Only Peter goes to the tomb and looking in sees the linen clothes by themselves. And he returns home amazed at what has happened!

And so should we be amazed. If we lose our sense of wonder we cannot enter into the story. For is there not something amazing in realising that a man who has been whipped and crucified is no longer constrained by death? Now tonight you may choose to believe that somehow he has not quite died but been recuscitated. Well if you believe that you may have a figure staggering around in pain, ready to drop. But that is not what Luke wants us to believe. His message is that the marks of death have been left in the darkness of the tomb. The bulky stone has been rolled away. And soon this Jesus will be as alive as ever he was, full of vibrancy and energy.

So what does Luke want to tell us? I think the answer is simple. It is that Jesus is very much risen from the reality of death. And that this is God work!

So what does it mean? In a real sense it represents a loud YES from God to all that Jesus has been and done. It is a loud YES to the kingdom about which Jesus was so passionate. It is a loud YES to a victory of life over death, hope over despair, love over hatred. It is the Divine triumph over the worst that fallen humanity can do.

But it belongs in the present as well as in the past. For we shall learn that we are invited to share in this victory and to identify with it in our lives. For contrary to the imagery of "The Lion King", Resurrection is not about things going on as before but about a new beginning. The physical Jesus in limited to time and space. Soon he will be no longer with those friends. But the work will go on and now it will depend on the likes of you and me getting involved in the story, continuing the passion of Jesus for the kingdom - but enabled to do so through the giving of the Holy Spirit. Resurrection is the divine vindication of Jesus allied to an invitation for us to enter into his work. It essentially means that what God has begin in Jesus in remote Galilee will go on across the globe in all manner of places. For this Jesus is for all times. He is our Lord and so we are called to be his followers.

And just as in his earthly life he goes on surprising us. Indeed a reason for the crucifixion is that Jesus was not the type of Messiah that people expected. And still that is the case. In all 4 gospels , Resurrection is first revealed to women whose testimony was to all intents and purposes regarded as worthless. For here is the sign that whilst Emperors might seek to capture the faith, it is through the marginalised that Jesus is especially seen to be working. Through him a kingdom is proclaimed whereby the first shall be last and the last shall be first. Through him, the systems of domination are exposed. Through him unimagineable dreams become our calling and take on reality.

Today we celebrate the good news that Jesus is alive. The music of triumph is on our lips. But ultimately this is the day that leads us to reflect on a serious calling to be the followers of the crucified yet risen Jesus and to walk into the world ready to be surprised again,and again and again!

Council Prayers in Bideford - Here I stand!

This week I gave an interview with BBC Spotlight concerning the issue of prayers at Bideford Town Council. Locally this has been an issue which has caused strong feelings on both sides forsome time. It has even damaged relationships within the council.

As a television interview especially when edited cannot tell the whole story, let me use this blog to make the case that I made in the interview. As I made clear I believe in prayer. What is important about prayer is not so much how we prattle on to God but how God uses prayer to speak to us. Therefore as I made clear I think it is good to come before God in prayer before we make important decisions. Certainly this is good reason for councillors to pray with regard to their very real responsibilities.

However, prayer is a voluntary activity. Surely it cannot be right to make people join in Christian prayer when they are either non believers or followers of another faith. To act in such a coercive manner is to step over the dignity of such people. It certainly doies not seem to fit in with the gracious conduct of Jesus in his dealings with those who thought and behaved differently than was his way.

Therefore, we face a dilemna. To a Christian prayer is an important part of how we seek to follow Jesus. To a non believer it is at best irrelevant and at worst an imposition. The big question is how we best follow our path of being the people of God taking seriously our need to be in contact with God and our calling to be respectful of others.

On the last two occasions that I have conducted Council prayers, I have used a time of silence in which people can pray quietly to god if they believe in God or engage in reflection if not. Then I say a short prayer in the Christian tradition concerning which I have already told them to feel equally free to say an Amen to or otherwise to remain silent. This has been the best I can do. But it doesn't satisfy me in terms of Christian prayer. It is not the solution.

Therefore I have come to the conclusion that prayers should be offered 5 minutes or so before the meeting. This would enable people to opt into prayers rather than to opt out which might well be portrayed as disrespectful conduct. It also enables prayers to be clearly of a Christian nature. Far from being particularly radical, this takes seriously the pattern adopted at the House of Commons

Now some would argue that this is all wrong on the basis that we are a Christian country. I reject this argument as courtesy and hospitable conduct is part of being a follower of Jesus. More than that we sell Christianity short if we speak of Britain being a Christian country. Despite having a Christian heritage Britain is most certainly not a Christian country, Christian observance is at an all time low and to be honest that which was called Christendom in the past was all too often a perversion of the gospel.

So the position I take would enable prayer to continue at Bideford whilst at the same time respecting the integrity of those who find prayers an unnacceptable imposition. I would that all desired to pray but also I reject those who suggest that non believers must just lump it and put up with what is alien to them. After all would those who favour imposing Christian prayers on those who walk a different path be accepting of for example Islamic prayers? For surely special pleading is hardly a gospel virtue.

The Mayor in his interview seems to feel that the issue has become very divisive. If that is his experience on the matter then I would suggest that such is the truth. I accepted an invitation to be interviewed on the basis that this issue calls for sensitivity rather tha megaphone diplomacy. On that basis I stand by every word of the interview I gave but not on selective interpretation such as I saw at lunchtime.