“I promise that I will do my best: To love my God, To serve the Queen and my country, To help other people and To keep the Guide law.”

to

“I promise that I will do my best: To be true to myself and develop my beliefs, To serve the Queen and my community, To help other people and To keep the (Brownie) Guide law.”

So is this a positive move?  Well, as you might expect, the secularists think that this is fantastic.  Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society said: “The introduction of one secular Promise for all is a hugely positive and welcome development.”  Whilst Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association said: “We wholeheartedly welcome the progressive step that Girlguiding have taken today.”

I’m not so sure.

Quite why they have decided to keep serving the Queen but not their country is curious and looking around the articles on this so far no one appears to have found a good answer yet.  Perhaps by serving the Queen, the implication is that serving your country comes as part of the deal.  Can you serve the Queen but not your country?  In the Parliamentary oath, there is no specific mention of serving the country:

“I… swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

If we accept that the country element is not crucial, then what is the need to replace ‘country’ with ‘community’? Community maybe easier to relate to in terms of scale, but it is a loose term that could be applied to the Guides community, a local community or something bigger.  It’s just a little bit more vague.

I’m being deliberately pedantic here, but the there has been a definite shift on two levels in the Guides’ promise.  One is moving from absolutes to relativism and the other is a focus more on the self.  Plus of course we have the removal of God’s name altogether.  The disappearance of God from the promise isn’t likely to make any practical difference except that those who don’t have a faith in God no longer have to lie or pretend.  I doubt that many have changed their beliefs following a recital of the Guide’s promise, but it’s still a sad day because God is no longer seen to be relevant and there is in effect a rejection of the roots of their movement.  Instead of dumping God altogether they could have followed Parliament’s example and offered an alternative promise for those who feel unable to speak the original:

“I… do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.”

It appears that this wasn’t acceptable following the consultation of its members and it has been decided that being a bit more non-nondescript is a bit better.  Girl Guides now have the challenge of working out what it means to be true to yourself and develop your beliefs.  That’s fine if you have a grounded set of beliefs in the first place, but otherwise it’s pretty meaningless talking about beliefs in this manner unless they are attached to something of value.  This is the problem with secularism; when it forces out the opportunity to affirm a belief in God it offers very little in return that will fill the void.  And we see that in the promise to be true to myself.  This pretty much sums up the spirit of our age where the cult of the individual is supreme.  To genuinely be true to ourselves is a hefty challenge at the best of times and even more so when there is no moral compass to guide us.  From a Christian point of view it’s impossible to be true to yourself if you are not also true to God and His guidance on how to live.  How can I be true to myself if I don’t know who I really am and what is best for me?  Secularism certainly isn’t going to provide the answer.

It is of no great surprise that the Girl Guides have changed their promise.  It was perfectly acceptable to  try to accommodate those who were uncomfortable with saying that they love God.  After all, we shouldn’t make promises we don’t mean or cannot keep, but instead of adding an alternative they have taken away something good and replaced it with words that might sound nice but offer minimal substance.  Is that really what the spirit of the Girl Guides movement is now all about?

For an additional read and another point of view, you can read the perspective of a Christian Girl Guide here.

.
Frequently in these articles we’re told that masculinity and fatherhood are going through a deep crisis. The Fractured Families report by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) published last Thursday finds that over three million children are growing up in lone parent households and estimates one million children have no meaningful contact with their fathers. On the same day a member for Fathers for Justice was arrested for defacing a painting of the Queen at Westminster Abbey. In a statement, Fathers for Justice identified the man arrested as “dad of two Tim Haries from Doncaster”. Campaign Director Jolly Stanesby, said: “Up to four million children will be without a father this Father’s Day. Tim Haries has lost all contact with his children and felt he had nothing to lose by appealing directly to the Queen for help by spraying his plea onto her portrait.”

There are fathers in this country who have abandoned their roles and responsibilities, but there are also those both living with their families and separated who want to be more involved, but being hindered in various ways. At both ends of the spectrum, the Government’s efforts to improve the situation are making a very limited amount of difference. For example Trades Union Congress analysis shows that just one in 172 eligible fathers are taking the additional paternity pay and leave (which was extended to 19 weeks of paid time off in March) which is now open to them if their partner returns to work early. The complexity of the arrangements are unlikely to have helped this.

All of this matters because research consistently finds that children living with both parents in a stable environment are much more likely to be happy, healthy and less likely to be living in poverty. State support to encourage strong families makes sense at a financial level as well as a societal one. The consequences of family breakdown can potentially be catastrophic for children and their parents. The CSJ’s report covers this at length and David Keen at Opinionated Vicar has provided an excellent overview and comment on it that is well worth reading. This is part of it:

Such breakdown would matter not a lot if the human and economic costs were insignificant. But they are in fact devastating. Children with separated, single or step-parents are 50 per cent more likely to fail at school, have low self-esteem, struggle to make friends and with their behaviour. They often battle with anxiety or depression throughout the rest of their lives.

Adults’ mental and physical health can take a huge knock when relationships crumble, making it much harder for them to achieve at work and be the parents they want to be. The costs are eye-watering – rising to £49 billion per annum by the end of this Parliament, it’s more than the Government’s whole defence budget.

For every £6,000 in reactive spending to family breakdown, the government spends only £1 on prevention.

Back in January of this year you recorded a video message setting out the UK’s position on global hunger.  You said:

“The UK is leading the fight against global hunger. The generosity of our people and the hard work of our charities have helped millions of families get the food they need.

“But there is still more to do. Times are hard here in the UK, but they are infinitely harder for the world’s poorest families. Nearly a billion people around the world do not get enough food. And undernutrition holds back the growth and development of millions of children.

“This is simply not acceptable in 2013.

“We need to tackle the root causes of hunger and poverty, not just the symptoms. So I will use the UK’s G8 to help build the open economies, open societies and open government which drives lasting prosperity. We will take action to promote transparency in extractive industries, so that the wealth of developing countries is used to tackle hunger and poverty, and not stolen by corrupt elites. We’ll work to ensure that everyone pays the tax they owe. And we’ll promote trade, to spur growth and wealth creation.

“I’m convinced that by the end of this year, this bold and transformative policy agenda can make a huge difference for millions of people around the world. And I welcome the energy, passion and commitment of the many hundreds of thousands of people throughout the UK who will be campaigning on this issue in 2013.”

I don’t need to explain to you why it is important that you make the most of this week’s G8 summit, because you already know it.  What I do want to do is remind you that thousands and thousands of people in this country and millions around the world share your concerns and support your actions.  Through the Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign people have been writing to their MPs, praying, fasting and spreading the message in many ways, because they believe that you are doing the right thing.  I even personally took the message and raised it on BBC’s Question Time to do what I could to make sure millions of viewers realised that there is an overwhelming need for action.  There is enough food for everyone in the world but every night 1 in 8 people go to bed hungry and every 10 seconds a child dies from hunger. Should we be happy to allow this to continue?

Please remember this when you are meeting with the other G8 leaders, especially when negotiations become difficult or others lack enthusiasm for what you hope to achieve.  Turn your mind back to the Gleneagles summit in 2005 when the G8 countries agreed to drop $40 billion owed by some of the most indebted countries.  Since then new HIV infections have decreased by 1 million and 5.4 million more people now have access to anti-retroviral drugs. The malaria mortality rate has been reduced by 20%, while child mortality has been cut by 18%.  That summit was a high point for the G8.  You have the chance to go another step further.

This week is your chance to follow in those footsteps, to create history and leave a legacy that will be a blessing to millions around the world for years to come.  This opportunity to host the G8 only comes around every eight years and you may well never get another opportunity in your lifetime to achieve these aims you care about.

When you look back on your career in the future, will you regret this opportunity if you allow it to slip by, or will you be able to hold your head up high knowing you did everything in your powers to reach these goals you have set yourself?

Thank you for your dedicated commitment to improving the lives of the poorest in the world and giving them hope that things can be better.  Be bold and courageous especially in the face of opposition.  Do not give up, but stand firm remembering that you will become part of this country’s history of dedication to aiding those in real need.  We are behind you.

Yours sincerely

Gillan Scott

(An abridged version of this letter has been sent to the Prime Minister’s office)

This difference of opinion appears to mainly be due to the content of the statement issued after the vote by the Bishop of Leicester who is the Convenor of the Bishops in the House of Lords.  The Bishop writes:

“Both Houses of Parliament have now expressed a clear view by large majorities on the principle that there should be legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales. 

“It is now the duty and responsibility of the Bishops who sit in the House of Lords to recognise the implications of this decision and to join with other Members in the task of considering how this legislation can be put into better shape…

“Our focus during Committee and Report stages in the coming weeks and months will be to address those points in a spirit of constructive engagement.”

This statement could be interpreted as a change in direction in the Church of England’s stance on same-sex marriage, but it is not.  Peter Ould on his blog has written a detailed piece that explains why this is the case.  The main point is that following the failure to win the vote in the House of Lords, the bishops are left with three options.  They either abstain from any future activity on this bill, they kick up a big fuss and try to derail it later in the process or they constructively engage to make sure the bill is fully scrutinised and improvements are made to make sure that it is as fully fit for purpose as possible.  The bishops have sensibly decided to go down the third route to do what they can to ensure that marriage as newly defined is equipped to carry within it as many as possible of the virtues of the understanding of marriage it will replace.

For some this has now turned the bishops into guilty accomplices to a bill that is both unbiblical and ungodly.  By doing so they have turned their backs on their spiritual calling to serve God.  Of course for others, both Christian and non-Christian, the view is that the Church and the Lords Spiritual should never have entered into this battle in the first place.  Tim Mongomerie, co-founder of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and now Comment Editor of The Times wrote an article earlier this week where he expressed the view that churches campaigning against gay marriage was a mistake.  His reasoning is that religious traditionalists need to realise that they are not just fighting losing battles, they are fighting the wrong battles. By fighting unwinnable battles — as in the battle against gay marriage — they are appearing authoritarian, losing goodwill and poisoning public attitudes towards their place in society.  Instead Montgomerie believes that religious leaders need to abandon their struggle to stop society from becoming increasingly secular.  Instead they should be coming together to protect their fundamental right to believe the things that they do and not to be marginalised as a result.

This thinking is flawed for a number of reasons and Elizabeth Oldfield, the director of the Christian think tank, Theos has written an eloquent rebuttal in response that explains why:

‘First, he seems to be saying “stop exercising your religious freedom, you’re threatening religious freedom”. The whole point of not just religious freedom, but freedom of speech more generally, is that it is the freedom to say things which are unpopular. A strategy which seeks to maintain freedom of religion or freedom of speech by never saying or doing anything that makes anyone else uncomfortable is doomed to failure.

‘Secondly, and disappointingly, Montgomerie has bought into the idea that religious people engaging in public debate amounts to “imposing their conception of morality on the rest of the population”. Engaging in our shared democratic life, proposing a vision of human flourishing and the common good as it relates to our personal, social and political existence is not “imposing” but  “proposing”. Without citizens engaging, campaigning, voting and contributing to our lawmaking according to their own passions and priorities we have no democracy at all.  Labelling religious people as the only ones trying to “impose” their vision of the common good on others is disingenuous.

‘Finally, Montgomerie’s call for religious people to stop focusing on common issues and instead argue only for their own freedom would have the exact opposite effect to the one he hopes for. Already, the churches and other faith groups are often seen as defensive and self-interested. This is usually because when they are fighting and campaigning on more popular social issues (i.e. welfare reform or the environment) they receive no coverage. However, retrenching from both these popular and the obviously unpopular issues is theologically incoherent and a recipe for tribal identity politics.’

These are difficult and challenging times for Christians (as well as those of other faiths), especially if they are attempting to hold on to the traditional views of their faith.  Being in the minority and feeling that your beliefs are not being respected is never easy, but the way we deal with these situations reveals a great deal about how we see the place of religion in our society and how we should live out our faith.

Christian Concern is one organisation that appears to be up for a fight to the end.  They have said that the Bible is clear that the Church does not exist to exercise the will of the State but the will of God. If there is a discrepancy between the two, the Church must follow the teaching of the Bible.  This approach curtails the amount of compromise in the relationship between church and state, but also limits potential engagement through continued opposition   You can’t say that there haven’t been plenty of Christians and churches who have made their feelings known and acted accordingly whether it be through the Coalition for Marriage’s petition, writing to MPs or in the case of the Lords Spiritual, speaking up in debate and voting to stop  the same-sex marriage bill progressing.  However, there is nothing in the Bible though that talks about Christians imposing their will by force and that inevitably means not always getting what you want.  Any underhand or guerilla tactics to get your way is not acceptable.  Christians should expect to be disagreed with.  This is not a theocratic country and Christians don’t have an automatic right to have their views respected and listened to.  The Bible talks about God’s wisdom not being the world’s wisdom, that Christians should proclaim God’s word and speak the truth, but it also talks about respecting the authorities we are under.  That means aiming to live at peace with those around us whilst at the same time not being afraid to challenge the status quo or those in charge if we believe they are acting improperly, whatever the issue may be.  Jesus was the prime example of someone who did this time and again. And this is why Tim Mongomerie’s argument is neither biblical nor sensible.  Being popular or alternatively being afraid of being marginalised was not the issue for Jesus.  He was more than happy to stir things up and get under people’s skin.  But at the same time along with this he talked about the peacemakers being blessed and of a kingdom full of love, grace and forgiveness along with servanthood.  To some these different aspects of what Jesus said and did may seem like contradictions, but actually holding them in together simultaneously is one of the things that makes the Christian faith so powerful.

This is how the Bishops in the House of Lord’s are dealing with the situation they find themselves in.  They have remained firm in their presentation of the Church of England’s stance, but they have not found sufficient numbers of peers and MPs agreeing with them.  It is therefore more important to be gracious in defeat and whilst not changing their views, they will now begin to work to ensure they do what they can to make the same-sex marriage bill as good as it can be in a constructive and positive manner, without ruling out the option of challenging it later if they have serious concerns.  This is far more appropriate than outright opposition.  In Ecclesiastes it talks about there being a time and a season for everything.  There has been a long time of fighting and robust argument, but now there also needs to begin a time of reconciliation and peacemaking and that is why I am convinced the Bishop of Leicester on behalf of the Lords Spiritual has made the right decision.

1. Where did the idea of the Wedding Angels come from?

Wedding Angels started through the founders Jane Sullivan & Emma Jeffery in early 2012. Jane started a project in Uganda called ‘Trade the Dress’ which encouraged UK women to take their wedding dresses out of the attic and donate them to a bride in Africa who would never be able to afford such a beautiful dress. The project was going well and Emma even donated her wedding dress to the cause, but Jane wanted to also start helping engaged couples in her own country. Emma had been involved in Events Management for a few years and had assisted in the organisation of various weddings and saw the struggles some couples have to meet the costs of getting married today and wanted to do something to help.

The Wedding Angels was formed to help people have their dream day on a low budget and give disadvantaged couples a strong, supported start to their marriage. Marriage was in our DNA from the beginning of time, with God providing a loving, supportive structure for building a family and flourishing at life. However it seems that even though many people want to start this journey together, there are hurdles that stand in their way. Wedding Angels is not just a charity, or a business, but a ministry. Jesus’ first miracle was to help people at their wedding; turning water into wine. He wanted the very best for the couple, and helped in the area that he could. That is our heart for the couples that we work with; offering generosity & compassion to show them Jesus’ love for them on the biggest day of their lives.

2. When a couple comes to you, how does the process work?

The Wedding Angels works mostly on word of mouth or referral. We meet couples often through church or other charity partners who have come across couples in need of our support. We meet with them, get to know them a little and find out what their budget is for the wedding. We then go away and review whether or not we take them on as a client (based on budget and their situation). Our official clients have access to our planning time for free as well as reduced supplier prices. If we do not feel they meet our criteria we still help out, acting in a more hands-off approach – providing low cost rentals and passing on our trusted suppliers’ contact information to them.

3. How have you gone about building relationships with churches and businesses?

When we take on a couple as clients we contact their chosen church (whether they are regular attendees or not), and meet with the leader to introduce ourselves and find out what marriage support they offer.  We have relationships with some fantastic local partner churches in & around Manchester who are very supportive of our vision and of the couples we work with. We are looking to partner with more churches locally to raise awareness and financial support of our work as well as promoting marriage & connecting couples in to the community there. Most churches are really keen to help couples and want them to not only have a great day but go into marriage feeling prepared and supported. We’re seeing the churches take ownership of the couples that come through us & taking them under their wing. We want to encourage more churches to do this and to see weddings & marriage as an incredible way to reach out & love people.

We also work with local wedding suppliers and businesses who offer ‘blessing rates’ to our clients which are cost-only prices to help out couples to be able to get married who couldn’t afford to do so otherwise. We have secured relationships in areas such as catering, entertainment, venues, hair & beauty, photography, transportation and stationery. Our suppliers are amazing and the support they show our clients is incredible, so we try to honour them back by passing on their details to other couples who we are not directly working with, as well as giving them free advertising space at our wedding fayres & events.

4. Is your model transferable? Could many churches do something similar?

We are still at an early stage with the development of The Wedding Angels so we are not planning on replicating this in other areas at the moment. We are however wanting to develop resources as well as marriage courses in the future to encourage churches to really get behind couples and would love to see this initiative spread around the UK.

5. What difference have you seen The Wedding Angels make?  Does it go beyond the actual wedding day?

One of our couples had a beautiful wedding at the end of March, after planning on getting married last October and finding that they didn’t have enough money. They came to us with no expectations, thinking that it still probably wasn’t going to happen with their low budget, but during the conversation the bride’s face lit up as she realised we were here for her without charging for our time. We partnered with a wonderful church who supplied great marriage preparation as well as providing the catering for the couple on their big day. We were even able to go beyond what they were thinking they could afford, throwing in a few surprises on the day. On commenting on the day, the bride said ‘Thanks so much for everything. It just wouldn’t be possible without you’.

We don’t want to just provide a beautiful wedding day but to help a couple have firm foundations for marriage, and to be supported in that journey by the local church. Whilst our primary focus is to facilitate and prepare couples for the wedding day, we also recognise that marriage is a lifelong commitment and we focus on enabling access to marriage training and look for married couples who can mentor and support the couples we work with. We want to establish these ‘marriage mentors’ in all the churches we partner with, who will meet with the couple into their married lives – not just in the run up to the wedding.

———-

You can find out more at www.theweddingangels.org and also on Facebook and Twitter.

Photos (c) Emma Jeffery

Looking back, here’s the rundown of the ten most read posts since God and Politics in the UK started back in November 2011:

1. A tale of two bomb attacks
2. David Cameron’s Easter message
3. Being gay, Steve Chalke and where the church has got it wrong
4. How much aid does the UK government give to countries where Christians are persecuted?
5. You’ve read Cameron’s Easter speech, now read President Obama’s
6. Giles Fraser’s attack on Evangelical Christians is both ignorant and unnecessary
7. Just how offensive was Rowan Atkinson’s Comic Relief Archbishop of Canterbury?
8. Unconditional: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs-Christians Debate by Justin Lee – a review
9. Have we shut out the poor from Christian festivals?
10. Loaded Magazine’s ex-editor condemn’s lad mag culture in act of repentance

Once again thank you for visiting this blog and taking the time to read my thoughts whether this is your first visit or you are a seasoned regular.  An especially big thank you to those who have guest-blogged, left comments or shared links through Twitter and Facebook.  I’m hoping and praying I can keep this up for at least another 100 entries.

Gillan

In response to this outcome, Christians in Parliament commissioned a follow-up survey to Clearing the Ground to examine the level and type of interactions local authorities have with faith groups focusing particularly on the work done by churches.  The report on this survey’s findings entitled Faith in the Community is released today.

155 local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales responded to the survey (37 per cent) and the results have given a fresh insight into the contribution of Christians to their local communities seen through the eyes of local authorities.

Unsurprisingly, between different authorities there were wide variations in the awareness and understanding of how much faith groups do in their local areas.  Some local authorities responded with uncertainty, and some were even unaware of any work being done locally by faith groups. Indeed, when asked to estimate the percentage of the voluntary and community sector work that was faith-based, the estimates varied from one per cent to 70 per cent.  However, overall the survey found that faith groups make a vast contribution to their local communities across a range of both predictable and surprising activities. Repeatedly local authorities cited the role of Trussell Trust food banks, Street Pastors and Christians Against Poverty debt advice centres. Other activities were identified which demonstrate the ‘cradle to grave’ support that faith communities provide, from caring for the young and the elderly to helping with dog training and anger management.

There was also a great deal of difference in how local authorities engage with faith groups and their perceptions of them.  Many local authorities and faith groups enjoy strong relationships through a mutual enthusiasm to work together.  One of the most positive responses came from Doncaster Council:

“One of the aims of most faith groups is to provide support to champion and meet the needs of vulnerable people in the local community. We are all called to serve the people. The fact is that by working together with faith groups we can do and achieve more. Faith groups often stand on the side of the hungry and poor and provide support for those who are grieving.”

However, the research showed there are a number of barriers that restrict engagement, or have been encountered in the process of working with faith groups.  This submission from North Yorkshire County Council highlights some of these difficulties:

There is a perceived fear (within parts of the public sector, public and media) that faith groups will seek to use public sector-funded service delivery as a means of increasing the number of followers of that faith group; and/or seek to discriminate between users of public sector-funded service delivery on the basis of the users’ faith or adherence to the beliefs or practices of the faith group, in particular beliefs that are or might appear to be contrary to equality legislation. There is a perceived fear (within faith groups) that local authorities won’t work with and/or don’t value faith groups. Generally, all of these perceptions
are false or can be overcome through discussion and better understanding of each other – but they do create barriers.

Religious literacy is still one of the greatest hindrances to faith groups and authorities working together effectively.  The survey showed that local authorities often have a poor understanding of faith groups, their beliefs and how those beliefs work themselves out in the lives of the faithful. It also found that faith groups often have an equally poor understanding of how local government works and the language that is required to engage with it.

Part of this problem was seen to be that Central Government are abdicating their responsibility in not providing guidance to local authorities on how to develop religious literacy. If they are serious about renewing civil society they need to do more to understand those who are most active at the heart of it.

Many of the local authorities surveyed recognised a gap in their understanding of faith communities, and more must be done to address this. A clear need was demonstrated for improved training on faith issues. Where training was provided it was usually through wider equality and diversity frameworks, which many respondents acknowledged did not improve religious literacy. Occasional examples were uncovered of innovative practice including Faith Trails where different faiths are explained through a tour of religious premises.

There is a significant opportunity for churches to play a role in helping local authorities become more faith-literate. Greater religious literacy is not achieved by local authorities agreeing with faith groups.  It is done when time and attention is given to understanding why faith groups do what they do and addressing presumptions and prejudices that can restrict effective partnerships.

The research showed that the barriers to better engagement can often be overcome. Despite challenges in the capacity of both faith groups and local authorities, churches have a well of resources that are vitally needed by our communities at this time. They also demonstrate an unparalleled depth of commitment to their communities, and especially those in poverty.

Churches reach the parts that local authorities cannot. This is because they are located within the communities that they serve.  Churches are not only physically there in the fabric of buildings that bring people together, they are made up of people from the rich and the poor, from the young and the old – and compelled by compassion, they are also on the streets and estates of the UK every day.   It is encouraging that many of the local authorities surveyed acknowledged this unique social good, realising that faith groups are intimately connected into communities in ways that they will never be able to, and that they are committed to working with the most vulnerable and hardest to reach.

At the end of the report, Gary Streeter, the chair of Christians in Parliament summarises broadly the current state of play and also the potential to make good progress between churches and local authorities in the future:

‘In places where care, compassion and charity are most needed, and the arms of the state are retracting due to a lack of resources, it is churches and other faith groups who are stepping into the breach.

‘What else would they do? Churches have taken this role throughout history, from staying in cities to care for plague victims instead of fleeing to the hills, to providing education and welfare before the state took up the mantle. Churches are, to cite Doncaster Council’s response, on the side of the hungry and the poor. They are the ones who get started before funding bids are accepted, and they are those who stick around after they are cancelled.

‘Even so, although churches, other faith groups and religious charities should be obvious partners of choice for local authorities, this has not always been the case. Too little effort has gone into understanding each other, and as a result barriers – either real or imagined – have arisen to inhibit this vital and vibrant collaboration. Where local authorities and faith groups have taken time to get to know each other, where they have worked together and committed to serve the local community, many of these barriers have fallen by the wayside.

‘In the years ahead, local authorities will have less money and greater demands. Faith groups are not there to plug a gap and be co-opted into quasistatutory services. Nor are they there to simply support or oppose economic policies. Faith groups are at the heart of communities. They always have been, and they will be in increasing numbers in the future. I encourage all local authorities to do all they can to build the strongest possible relationships and make the most of this vast and positive resource. Not least because, enhancing relationships with faith groups will make a difference to people in the greatest need.’

The fully Faith in the Community report can be viewed here.

The IF coalition, which includes Save the Children, Oxfam, Unicef, Tearfund, World Vision and Christian Aid, is calling on the G8 group of industrialised countries, which meets in Northern Ireland on 17 and 18 June, to increase funding to tackle extreme hunger and malnutrition globally. The coalition also wants the G8 to make greater efforts to give people in poorer countries control over their land, both by ensuring transparency and greater accountability over land deals and by closing loopholes that allow companies to avoid paying tax.  The Big If event in Hyde Park along with the Big IF service prior to it in Westminster Central Hall were all about getting this message out and catching the attention of the world’s media and leaders.

We are already beginning to see some of these calls producing results.  David Cameron who is fully behind the campaign led a high-level summit on nutrition yesterday resulting in a $4 billion commitment from rich countries to tackle malnutrition in developing countries.  It should ensure that at least 500 million pregnant women and children benefit from effective nutrition interventions; prevent at least 20 million children under the age of five from stunted growth; and save at least 1.7m lives by increasing breastfeeding and treating severe acute malnutrition.

There’s a full account of the #BigIF events on the Enough Food for Everyone IF website, but having attended both the service and the rally at Hyde Park there are a few moments and thoughts I’d like to share.

• The turnout was impressive.  Talking with some of the leaders of  the charities and organisations, they were extremely pleased with the turnout.  There is no way of knowing with events like this how well attended they will be.  It was to best opportunity so far to gauge the level of public support since the campaign was launched.  The service at Westminster Central Hall was completely packed out, as was the overflow venue at St. Margaret’s across the road.  There were still plenty of people left stuck outside who then rather than wandering off, decided to start their own impromptu service.  The total number attending was estimated to be 6,000. Not bad for a church service.  The organisers I spoke to were also hoping for around 30,000 people to attend the main event.  The actual figure of around 45,000 was beyond their expectations.  There was a united feeling among many that this campaign has truly caught the public’s imagination.

• This prayer from the ecumenical service expressed some deep truths: ‘We pray that you will teach us the true meaning of ‘enough’, that we may know the joy of simplicity and sufficiency, that we may be set free by the love of Christ and the power of the Spirit from the captivity of ‘more’ to the solidarity of ‘less’.’

• Vincent Nichols and Justin Welby got straight to the point without mincing their words at the service.  Nichols said, “These are our brothers and sisters and their suffering is also ours.  There can be no excuse that in a world of plenty, so many go without.  We have gathered today to show our solidarity with those millions who are made to have less because the food system is skewed in favour of those with both financial and political power.”   Welby’s recorded video message included this: “My prayer would be that in this country and across the world, that we are deeply committed to enabling people to be self-sustaining, so that global hunger can be ended in our lifetimes.”

• Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates praised Britain for “leading the way” on tackling child hunger.  There is something in the British psyche that has a strong sense of justice that is not just focused on our ourselves.  This might be due to our strong Christian heritage, or a hangover from the British empire imbuing a sense of responsibility towards other countries who have less than us, or some other quality.  Whatever the case we should be very thankful that Britain cares deeply about these issues and is willing to act and take the lead.

• Without Christian organisations, Enough Food for Everyone IF wouldn’t have been anywhere near as successful.  Everywhere you looked round the rally, placards from Christian organisations were prevalent.  Tearfund and CAFOD signs in particular were all over the place.  The Christian faith cannot be divorced from compassion towards the poor and suffering and the presence of so many Christian organisations was a clear demonstration of this.

• The most powerful moment for me was not when celebrities and activists gave forceful and passionate speeches, but the quiet and calm voice of  Aimee Manimani.  Aimee is the communications officer for World Vision in the Democratic Republic of Congo and spoke at the Big IF service.  She sat with me and described the awful situation for many people in her country who cannot find enough food to live on most days.  Some are dying because of the lack of food.  They can’t farm much of the land because it is controlled by the mining companies.  Communities have been displaced.  Even if they work in the mines they earn a pittance.  70 per cent of the mining companies profits go abroad and money is not invested in important areas such as education.  She believes that if the changes to land deals, tax transparency and dodging that the IF campaign is calling for are met at the G8 summit, then the changes to the lives of the people in her country will be huge and for the better.

Campaigning on such issues of justice in this country often feels like a worthwhile activity, but when you hear the stories firsthand of people who are severely suffering because of injustices that can be addressed, it brings home just how much of a big deal these issues actually are.  The items for discussion at the G8 summit later this month are much more than just a political challenge, they really are a matter of life and death.

You can see some of my own photos from the BigIF day on the God and Politics in the UK Facebook page.

‘Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It pulls couples together through the ebb and flow of life. It gives children stability. And it says powerful things about what we should value.’

Over the last year and a half there it has been affirming to see such little disagreement with this belief that marriage benefits society.  In fact why would so many people fight so strongly for it if they did not hold it in such high esteem?  The facts support such a valuation.  The Marriage Foundation offers plenty of evidence to demonstrate that marriage can lead to increased incomes, better health and improved well-being for both parents and children.  Neill Harvey-Smith on his blog yesterday drew attention to this statistic that highlights the tremendous difference marriage makes to children:

‘For every 100 kids sitting their GCSEs at the moment, 55 still live with both their parents. So – of those 55 kids, how many do you think have unmarried parents? The answer is 4. Intact unmarried parents of older teens are about as common as 90-year-old smokers. If marriage were just a contract, this remarkable adhesive quality would be inexplicable…  Children need marriage because, without it, parents rarely stay together, and staying together magnifies their children’s life chances.’

Only a fool would argue against numbers like this and yet marriage is still suffering in the popularity stakes.  Between 1996 and 2012 the number of married couples rose slightly from 12.1 million to 12.6 million.  In contrast, there were 2.9 million cohabiting couples in the UK, double the 1996 figure of 1.5 million.  So what has caused cohabitation to increase so dramatically?  Most of the answers are obvious.  Rapid social and cultural changes since the 1960s have produced an aversion to tradition and establishment.  Being in a partnership but not being married has become increasingly acceptable, partly as the influence of religious belief and the Church has waned.  Some are uncomfortable with marriage because of their own painful experiences watching their parents divorce.  Others have no experience of marriage within their family and have little appreciation of its benefits.  Another reason even for those who would want to get married is the cost of a wedding.

In 2009 the average wedding cost was under £11,000.  This has now soared to over £18,000 according to research published last month.  This is  a scarily large amount of money.  The result for those who do go through with it is an average debt of £3,000.  Of those surveyed, 21 per cent had to take out credit cards and loans to pay for their wedding day with a further 25 per cent borrowing money from family and friends.  23 per cent put off getting married due to the high costs and 11 per cent admitted that the financial pressures caused them to come close to breaking up.

The actual basic costs of a marriage ceremony are not great and have changed very little.  The main reason for increased costs is the ever expanding list of extras that have become ‘musts’.  Going back to the survey, 18 per cent blamed the pressure to “keep up with the Jones” as the main reason for wedding costs snowballing, whilst a 33 per cent put it down to an over-sized guest list.  Hosting a free bar caused 16 per cent of newlyweds’ finances to get out of control, and 19 per cent felt obliged to fully kit out their bridal party even though they could not afford it.

Francesca Preece writing in the Daily Mail of her own experiences of getting married raises a series of points that will be true for most couples:

‘This is the sad truth. There are so many couples out there, both with and without kids, who would like to say ‘I will’ in front of families and friends but who are put off by expense. Who in their right mind if strapped for cash would pick a wedding over a mortgage deposit for a house? The romantic in us may, but the practical part of us wouldn’t.

‘The problem though is not so much the money side of it, but the expectation. The feeling is that if you are going to get married, you have to ‘do it properly’ – and all that entails.

‘So much to do with modern weddings is posturing, keeping-up-with-the-joneses nonsense. People will happily borrow money to pay for the grotesque trappings of the modern ‘celebrity’-influenced ceremony, when we should all live within our means and remember what it’s really about – two people pledging themselves to each other for the rest of their lives.’

The wedding day, rather than being focused on the commitment of two individuals to each other for the rest of their lives has increasingly become an overblown commercial monster that is likely to do more long-term damage than good.  It’s a terrible and unnecessary state of affairs with the costs only likely to increase even higher.  For those of us who care about the value of marriage, are we happy to sit back and let this happen without doing something to address it?  Government might feel uneasy about telling couples to reign in their spending, but individuals, families and churches should definitely be able to speak up in a helpful way to take the pressure off expectations of the big day without couples feeling that their wedding will be second-rate if it doesn’t have all the knobs and whistles stuck on to it.

It’s a common aspect of our culture that too many people act like sheep going along with things because they perceive that everyone else is doing so and are too afraid to do anything differently.  We need people with a voice to offer alternatives who can explain that all this unaffordable extravagance is not worth the financial pain and consequences.  Plenty of churches run marriage courses in different forms that can give an opportunity to discuss this matter in a relaxed and helpful way.  There are charities such as The Wedding Angels who work with couples, churches and businesses to make wedding days affordable, irrespective of couples’ budgets.  This is not an impossible problem.

The position we find ourselves in where couples who would wish to get married feel unable to because of the costs or accept that they will have to run up large debts if they choose to take the plunge is not healthy or intelligent.  It’s time we did something to address this perverted situation.  Ironically most of the best weddings I’ve been to have been on fairly tight budgets.  Paul McCartney wrote that ‘Money can’t buy me love’ and it can’t buy you a perfect wedding day either.  For that you need friends, family and commitment.  And all of those are free.

It’s a sad state of affairs that when you hear someone trying to defend the traditional understanding of marriage at the moment they so often start by explaining that they are not in any way criticising gay people, usually justifying the statement by letting you know that they have several gay friends who are lovely people, whom they have a deep respect for. It’s disappointing at a number of levels.  It reveals the shallowness of the same-sex marriage debate that discussing what marriage is and should be is seen by many as a personal attack on gay people, which at its core it most definitely isn’t.  It also reflects on the way that gay people have been treated so badly in the past by the state, the church and the majority of the public, that arguing that marriage should be exclusively for heterosexuals is seen to be continuing in the attitude of previous times when gay people have been institutionally harassed and oppressed.  Even as I write this I’m wondering whether my language is coming over as homophobic.  There is so much baggage being carried by us all that publicly discussing the nature of what marriage should be objectively is near impossible.  Many people feel unable to voice their opinions openly because of the reaction they fear they will receive.  This is especially true if you bring religion or God into the conversation.

I’ve heard from a reliable source that this has been the case with some MPs during the progression of the Marriage Bill, but judging by the speeches yesterday in the House of Lords, some of the Peers don’t seem to have been too worried by this fear.  Maybe it’s an older generation (the average age of the House of Lords is 69) being more comfortable about expressing their opinions or maybe it’s the lack of concern over what voters might think, but the debate prompted this observation from Baroness Berridge:

Surprised So many peers using God to justify their position – not only Bishops in fact not sure abc did. Interesting—
Baroness Berridge (@BaronessEB) June 03, 2013

She is correct on this point.  Justin Welby did not mention God explicitly during his creditable speech.  He did however apologise that church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should.  He also gave a damning critique of the current failures of the Bill as it stands, holding little back in his defence of marriage as it currently stands:

“The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already heard – is weakened.”

Maybe the reason for Welby’s failure to give God a mention was explained at the end his speech where he explained that marriage is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good.  He is of course right.  It is not owned by any religion or faith group or any institution for that matter.  It is, as the Pope describes it, Natural Law – something that is intrinsically part of our human make-up for the stability of relationships and the common good.

Even though marriage is not a faith issue, for each one of us, our view on whether it is a man-made construct or the creation of God is likely to profoundly affect how we approach it.  If it has been formed apart from God then it would be perfectly acceptable to see it evolving in a similar way to the development of equality between men and women over previous decades and centuries.  This should still be on the proviso that benefits of such a move could be established and those drafting the necessary legislation don’t make a hash of it.  In the Lords today for example Baroness Stowell who is an equalities spokeswoman for the Government said that extending the concept of adultery to same-sex marriages would not make sense, which goes to show that trying to make marriage fully equal is never going to happen.

One the other hand, if we believe that marriage is a gift from God and part of the Creator’s design for the world then we should be treading very carefully when any change to its fundamental structure is proposed.  It’s no wonder that the majority of Christians and also those of other faiths are deeply worried by what the Government has been trying to achieve.  To tell these people that they are out of touch, or backward is to completely misunderstand how having a religious faith guides your approach to life and thinking.  If anyone expects those who for religious reasons believe marriage should stay as it is to get over it and move on if and when the Marriage Bill comes into effect, they are guaranteed to be disappointed.  A faith that can be swayed that easily isn’t worth holding on to.

For those who hold religious views on marriage, this episode has caused a lot of soul-searching, deep thinking and prayer to happen.  The church has mostly become much more positive in its language towards gay people.  The value of civil partnerships has by-and-large been affirmed, many people have realised just how much marriage means to them and our political leaders received a huge amount of prayer.  Much of this has happened with a good deal of grace despite the labels of ‘Bigot’ repeatedly being thrown around.

I heard someone recently explaining that by creating this bill, the Government had effectively put God in the dock, by explicitly forcing those voting on the issue to choose between God’s ways and man’s.  There is an element of truth in this, but maybe more so we have put our nation in the dock.  In doing so we are finding out if as a society we are capable of allowing  freedom of speech where those with views from all sides of the argument are listened to with respect and allowed to voice legitimate beliefs and views without fear.

Assuming the current Marriage Bill will go through, there is still plenty to do to see it moulded into a form that is not going to leave many people fearful that their views will be respected if they do not agree with the changes.  There are far more who fit into that category than those who will benefit from a redefinition of marriage.  If those who feel unable to support this move, especially because of their beliefs run the risk of being marginalised or even persecuted then this whole endeavour will have been a disaster.  Those who are overseeing this bill have an important responsibility towards all of society to make it work effectively.  They owe it to us all and the institution of marriage not to treat any aspect of it with contempt.

It’s very encouraging to hear that The Cinnamon Network has been given a Big Society Award by the Prime Minister today.

The Cinnamon Network is a community of 100 CEOs of charities, social enterprises and church denominations who are passionate about strengthening the muscles of local churches for community transformation.  It is a partnership between Make It* Happen, Piercing Blue and Tearfund operating under Tearfund’s management and governance.  The vision of The Cinnamon Network is to see the UK Church step up to increasingly meet the growing social needs within our communities. Its primary strategy is Community Franchising which aims to replicate successful local church based social transformation projects across the UK.

It has a range of funds that offer a number of grants to churches to fund social action projects which have included Street Pastors in Manchester, a befriending scheme for isolated older people in Wokingham and debt advice services in Bradford.

The Network launched in 2010. It supports projects in every region in England and has begun expanding into Scotland. It is estimated that 2,950 local churches are running projects in their local communities, with the help of 47,440 volunteers and benefiting 690,242 people.

Commenting on the award Prime Minister David Cameron said:

“I’m pleased to be able to give The Cinnamon Network this Big Society Award in recognition of the huge difference they have made across the country.

“From jobs clubs to street pastors, by supporting churches to address the most pressing issues in their neighbourhoods, The Cinnamon Network is transforming communities for the better.”

Matt Bird, Co-Chair of the Cinnamon Network said:

“The Cinnamon Network is strengthening the muscles of local churches by generating ideas for community projects, encouraging neighbouring churches to work in partnership and providing £2,000 micro-grants to any church that wants to start a recognised project.We want to make sure that local churches have the funding and support to do what they do best – reaching out to their local communities to help those most in need.”

The Cinnamon Network supports projects in every region of England including:

• Tunbridge Wells, where a group of nine churches; the New Life Calvary Church St Philip’s Church, King Charles the Martyr, Vale Royal Methodist Church, United Reformed Church, TW Baptist Church,Salvation Army Church, St James’ Church, St Augustine’s, and King Charles the Martyr are being supported to run Nightshelters providing short-term accommodation for homeless people
• Portsmouth, where the network has helped fund a debt-advice centre
• Cornwall, where Cinnamon Network grants have allowed Community Money Advice centres to be set up in Launceston and Bude
• Sparkhill, where St John’s Church has received funding to run a Community Money Advice centre as part of the Narthex Community Centre
• Greater Manchester, where grants from the Network have helped provide personal development sessions for ex offenders
• Across the North East the network supports and helps fund ‘Open Door North East’, providing assistance and training to help refugees integrate into the local community
• Corby, where the Network’s ‘Lunch’ scheme provides healthy, cooked free school meals in the holidays
• In Norwich, Peterborough and Cambridge ‘Hope into Action’ have been given support and seed grants from the Network to help them provide housing for homeless people in partnership with local churches
• Bradford is the home of Christian Against Poverty’s debt advice services which, with support and funding from the Network, offer a combination of professional debt management, financial education and face-to-face support and encouragement

It’s very welcome to see the widespread work of churches in their communities being valued publicly by David Cameron.  The Cinnamon Network is providing a valuable service to churches through an effective and sustainable model and its recognition is thoroughly deserved.  Congratulations to Matt Bird, David Westlake and the team.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?

The Queen: All this I promise to do.

If you look at any coin with the Queen’s portrait on it you will see round her head ‘ELIZABETH II D.G. REG. F.D.’  This is short for ‘Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor’.  This can then be translated as ‘Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, Queen, Defender of the Faith’.

The Queen’s position is inseparable from the Christian faith as the supreme governor of the Church of England.  As a country we are in the privileged position of having a monarch who has a deep and genuine personal faith.  She has kept her promise to profess the Gospel and defend the Christian faith not just out of duty, but because it is part of her personal identity.  If you look back on her Christmas speeches over the last few years, it quickly becomes apparent just how much her faith means to her:

The simple facts of Jesus’ life give us little clue as to the influence he was to have on the world. As a boy he learnt his father’s trade as a carpenter. He then became a preacher, recruiting twelve supporters to help him. But his ministry only lasted a few years and he himself never wrote anything down. In his early thirties he was arrested, tortured and crucified with two criminals. His death might have been the end of the story, but then came the resurrection and with it the foundation of the Christian faith. 

Even in our very material age the impact of Christ’s life is all around us. If you want to see an expression of Christian faith you have only to look at our aweinspiring cathedrals and abbeys, listen to their music, or look at their stained glass windows, their books and their pictures. 

But the true measure of Christ’s influence is not only in the lives of the saints but also in the good works quietly done by millions of men and women day in and day out throughout the centuries. 

Many will have been inspired by Jesus’ simple but powerful teaching: love God and love thy neighbour as thyself – in other words, treat others as you would like them to treat you. His great emphasis was to give spirituality a practical purpose.

To many of us our beliefs are of fundamental importance. For me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life. I, like so many of you, have drawn great comfort in difficult times from Christ’s words and example.” (2000)

“I know just how much I rely on my own faith to guide me through the good times and the bad. Each day is a new beginning, I know that the only way to live my life is to try to do what is right, to take the long view, to give of my best in all that the day brings, and to put my trust in God. Like others of you who draw inspiration from your own faith, I draw strength from the message of hope in the Christian gospel.”  (2002)

“For me, as a Christian, one of the most important of these teachings is contained in the parable of the Good Samaritan, when Jesus answers the question, Who is my neighbour? 

It is a timeless story of a victim of a mugging who was ignored by his own countrymen but helped by a foreigner, and a despised foreigner at that. 
The implication drawn by Jesus is clear. Everyone is our neighbour, no matter what race, creed or colour. The need to look after a fellow human being is far more important than any cultural or religious differences.”  (2004)

“I hope that, like me, you will be comforted by the example of Jesus of Nazareth who, often in circumstances of great adversity, managed to live an outgoing, unselfish and sacrificial life. Countless millions of people around the world continue to celebrate his birthday at Christmas, inspired by his teaching. 

He makes it clear that genuine human happiness and satisfaction lie more in giving than receiving; more in serving than in being served. 

We can surely be grateful that, two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, so many of us are able to draw inspiration from his life and message, and to find in him a source of strength and courage.”  (2008)

“Although we are capable of great acts of kindness, history teaches us that we sometimes need saving from ourselves – from our recklessness or our greed.

God sent into the world a unique person – neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive.

Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities. It is in forgiveness that we feel the power of God’s love.

In the last verse of this beautiful carol, O Little Town Of Bethlehem, there’s a prayer:

O Holy Child of Bethlehem, 
Descend to us we pray.
Cast out our sin
And enter in.
Be born in us today.

It is my prayer that on this Christmas day we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord.”  (2011)

“This is the time of year when we remember that God sent his only son ‘to serve, not to be served’.

“He restored love and service to the centre of our lives in the person of Jesus Christ.

“It is my prayer this Christmas Day that his example and teaching will continue to bring people together to give the best of themselves in the service of others.

“The carol, In The Bleak Midwinter, ends by asking a question of all of us who know the Christmas story, of how God gave himself to us in humble service: ‘What can I give him, poor as I am? If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb; if I were a wise man, I would do my part’.

“The carol gives the answer ‘Yet what I can I give him – give my heart’. (2012)

Queen Elizabeth II has become one of our nation’s greatest evangelists.  At a time when secularism is flooding through our institutions she remains an unwavering advocate for the need to know God in our lives.  Since 1953 she has dedicated herself as much to the Christian faith as she has to our country, and for this we should all be thankful.

These cases all centred on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion focusing on the freedom to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”.  A huge amount of time, energy and money has been consumed by those representing the four applicants and having gained limited success, perhaps the most obvious questions are whether it was worth it and whether an understanding and interpretation of the limitations of Article 9 have become any clearer.  The cases of Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin pose different problems to those of Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane and consequently need to be treated separately.

Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin’s cases both involved the wearing of a cross at work at face value appear quite similar, but actually the contrasting judgements highlight the differences and point to why Shirley Chaplin’s case was flawed, when Nadia Eweida’s was not.  Sensibly the ECHR found that the British courts had been wrong to favour Eweida’s employer, British Airways’ aim for staff to project a certain corporate image over her personal religious freedom.  The ECHR decided that her wearing of a cross did not harm that image and that therefore she should be allowed to wear it.  British Airways had been heavy-handed and unaccommodating in their actions on an issue that would have had minimal effect on anyone, whilst the British courts had failed to take this into consideration.  Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said the judgment was ‘an excellent result for equal treatment, religious freedom and common sense’. She said British courts had ‘lost their way’ in Ms Eweida’s case and that ‘Strasbourg has actually acted more in keeping with our traditions of tolerance’.

The scale of the fight over the right to wear a religious symbol may have appeared superficially disproportionate given that it’s not an issue at the top of most Christians’ agendas, however when calls were coming from David Cameron and other high-profile MPs to allow it, it was clear that something had gone wrong with the British legal system on this occasion.  The ECHR proved that assumption to be correct.  It was the first time ever that the Court had found the UK in violation of Article 9 and was a reminder that equalities law causes as many headaches as it solves and is not always a force for good depending on how rigidly it is interpreted.

In comparison, Shirley Chaplin’s case suffered from the fact that as a nurse, she had been given permission to wear her cross in public, just not on a chain around her neck.  Her complaint gave the impression of being overly fussy and whilst her employer had shown a degree of effort to accommodate her wishes, she had not been willing to compromise in return.  The Daily Mail may have considered it to be a form of persecution, but many people including Christians could easily have seen her demands as dogmatic and ungracious.  Her case had very little chance of succeeding at the ECHR and one wonders if her lawyers genuinely believed they would win at any point.

Whilst the issue of wearing a cross is an irritation, it’s unlikely that anyone in future will choose not to go into nursing because they are unable to wear a cross around their neck.  However, the same cannot be said in relation to the professions of Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane.  Ladele was disciplined by Islington Borough Council because she refused to perform civil ceremonies for same-sex couples in her role as a registrar.  McFarlane was dismissed from his job as a relationship counsellor for Relate because he could not confirm that he would be able to offer same-sex couples sex therapy.  Neither Ladele nor McFarlane at any point failed to carry out their duties, instead both individuals fell foul of their organisations’ equal opportunities policies.  Neither employers needed them to perform the disputed services, but instead the issue related to their beliefs, attitudes and the potential impact on their work.  They were forced into a situation of choosing between leaving their jobs or keeping them but being prepared to act against their conscience and religious beliefs.

The reason that Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane’s cases ultimately failed was not that the ECHR did not accept the genuine religious motivation behind their decisions.  The ECHR’s ruling came down to the consideration that the most important factor to be taken into account was that the policies of the applicants’ employers (to promote equal opportunities and to require employees to act in a way which did not discriminate against others) had the legitimate aim of securing the rights of others, such as same-sex couples, who are also protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Based on this approach, it would have been hard to have found a reason for the Grand Chamber to have reached a different conclusion.  What we see is that when differing streams of equalities legislation come into conflict with each other, unless employers are willing to adopt a position of reasonable accommodation, one stream will lose out to the other.  With the way equalities legislation is currently framed in the UK, religious belief will be the likely loser and the ECHR has confirmed this.  However in the decision of Lilian Ladele, two of the seven judges had ruled in her favour, stating that where courts find conscientious objection is a manifestation of deep religious conviction and beliefs, there is a need to strike a fair balance in which respect for the individual’s moral conscience is taken into account and reasonable accommodation should be made where possible. The dissenting judges stated that:

“It was incumbent upon the local authority to treat her differently from those registrars who had no conscientious objection to officiating at same-sex unions – something which clearly could have been achieved without detriment to the overall services provided by the Borough including those services provided by registrars, as evidenced by the experience of other local authorities. Instead of practising the tolerance and the “dignity for all” it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness. It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience or face the extreme penalty of dismissal – something which, even assuming that the limitations of Article 9:2 apply to prescriptions of conscience, cannot be deemed necessary in a democratic society. Ms Ladele did not fail in her duty of discretion: she did not publicly express her beliefs to service users. Her beliefs had no impact on the content of her job, but only on its extent. She never attempted to impose her beliefs on others, nor was she in any way engaged, openly or surreptitiously, in subverting the rights of others.”

These rulings are a stark reminder that whether we are willing to admit it or not we are in the last throes of Christendom in our country.  The religious foundations of our society are in places being replaced by a notional belief in equality for all where religion is put on an equal footing with a whole range of other elements of our society’s make-up.  Christian belief no longer defines the law, but instead is increasingly subject to it.  The problem inevitably now comes in how ‘equality’ is interpreted and who makes the final decision on it.  Equality in essence is a worthwhile ideal, but for Lilian Ladele and Gary McFarlane’s cases, the stumbling block has been where equality has been perceived to have been used in an overly officious way.  For each of the four applicants their employers were seen to have been intolerant of their views in one form or another in an excessive and unreasonable way.  The fact that in each case the employee was a Christian is actually a side issue.  We can see the same heavy-handed approach in the news this week where Morrisons have suspended an employee for wearing a Help for Heroes wristband.

Christians are, whether they like it or not, stuck in the middle of this cultural change.  Religious belief can be far more complicated than issues of race or sexuality and it is inevitable that employers will struggle to cope with it at times.  Unfortunately ignorance or prejudice will often make this worse and we will continue to see similar cases in future.  Certainly Christians should be allowed to defend their rights on grounds of justice; the apostle Paul was often in court and did what he could to work the law to his advantage.  But also there is a wisdom needed that understands that the Church and the Christian faith cannot expect to be treated with a level of respect that it was previously, even if this is detrimental to society as a whole.  Some battles need to be fought, but Christians need to be careful about throwing the persecution label around unnecessarily.  A litigious Christian faith is not honouring to God and will win it few friends.  Knowing when to cease travelling down the legal path through appeals is part of that.  By taking the remaining three cases to the ECHR’s Grand Chamber, the lawyers can say that they have given it everything, but it’s really time to move on now, make sense of the implications and respect the decisions that have been made.

On the Thursday morning I caught the news about Google’s vice president, Matt Brittin receiving a grilling by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee during which the chair, Margaret Hodge accused Google of “devious, calculated and, in my view, unethical behaviour”.  She added: “You are a company that says you do no evil and I think that you do do evil in that you use smoke and mirrors to avoid paying tax.”  Having read Christian Aid’s new report, ‘Who Pays the Price?’ on the cost of tax avoidance and a passage by the Pope on the immorality of taking money from a country through trade without honouring it in return, it made sense to do a bit of cramming on the subject and hope it would come up during the course of the programme.  As you’ll see if you read my other articles where I’ve discussed this, the scandal of world hunger could soon be ended if the revenues that developing countries lose through tax dodging were available to them to invest in agricultural development.  I wasn’t willing to let the opportunity to raise this slip by.

Later that day as I was waiting in the queue to go through security to get into the studio, I made some time to talk to God and ask Him to give me an opportunity to speak.  I definitely didn’t want to sit and just watch and if I did get a chance, not to simply make a political point, but to introduce an element of morality into the discussion.

Once we’d made it through security we had to submit a written question, so I put down the one I’d planned, asking if Google’s tax arrangements were indeed evil as Margaret Hodge had suggested.  I then went and joined the crowd waiting for everything to kick off.  With Question Time those who will be asking the questions find out about 10 minutes before the start of recording.  Mine was the second name to be called out and at that moment I remember sitting and praying, ‘God you’ve given me more than I asked for, I’ve now got a platform to discuss with the panel what I’ve brought in front of over 2 million people, please don’t let me blow it.’

It was a nervous few minutes waiting for my question to come up and thinking about what I wanted to say.  I was hoping to mention Enough Food for Everyone IF and bring up the way that tax avoidance caused by multinationals shifting profits out to low or no tax jurisdictions deprives developing countries of around $160 billion per year.  I also wanted to talk about the need for the G8 summit in Northern Ireland in June to work on international agreements on transparency and the use of off-shore tax havens.  In the end when the panel were presented with the question, the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond confirmed that the Government will be taking this issue to the G8 and he spoke of the damage tax avoidance does to developing countries.  David Dimbleby then gave me three chances to speak and I was able to cover almost everything that I had hoped I might be able to.

It’s very hard to judge how you’ve got on in the heat of the moment, but during and after the programme’s broadcast many people have spoken to or contacted me to say how pleased they were to see me raising the subject and the quality of my response.  All I can think and say is to thank you God for giving me an opportunity and helping me to speak.

Tax avoidance is still a subject that difficult to understand in any depth.  It’s not easy to get excited about it.  Only a few years ago most of the public and few MPs had little interest in it.  Christian Aid was the first major non-governmental organisation to call for country-by-country reporting across every corporate sector five years ago.  Since then it has been slowly rising up the political agenda as the consequences of it become more apparent.  Finally the momentum is beginning to build.  On Friday the EU made a decision to require European multinationals to report the profits made and taxes paid in every country where they operate.  David Cameron will be going to the G8 summit attempting to influence other countries beyond the EU to look at similar requirements.  Enough Food for Everyone IF has demonstrated the determination of charities and organisations to press governments to take action in a similar way to the methods used back in 2005 with the Make Poverty History campaign.  Tax dodging by multinationals will not longer be ignored.

Large scale tax avoidance by multinationals is a pain for rich countries, but they potentially have the power to do something about it.  For poor countries though, it can make a massive difference to their economies.  One in eight people around the world goes to bed hungry each night and this is one of the biggest hindrances to seeing the situation improve.  That’s why I believe this sort of tax avoidance has become a significant moral issue and why I believe God cares about it.  Once again Christians are at the forefront of campaigning and petitioning governments.  We’ve seen this before in recent times with fair trade,  the Jubilee 2000 campaign and Make Poverty History and now with IF.  God’s passion for the poor is set on the hearts of his people and action for change is the result.  It’s been the same for me and even though being able to say something on Question Time will not make a massive difference in the grand scheme of things, it was a privilege to play a part in raising the issue again in such a public way.