Gay Sex, Christian Counsellors and the Law

I decided this thought was not appropriate for "Thought for the Week" on our chaplaincy website so here it is instead!

Christian counsellor Gary MacFarlane has lost his case against being dismissed for refusing to give sex therapy to a same-sex couple. I don’t agree with Mr. MacFarlane – there is more than one Christian view on this – but nor do I agree with the judge’s verdict which argues that legislation cannot protect religious views as this would be irrational, “divisive, capricious and arbitrary”. The reported basis of this judgement strikes me as more than a little odd, it could just as easily be argued that the judge has decided irrationally, divisively, capriciously and arbitrarily that religious views have no place in our public life. This kind of ideological secularism is as much a world view held on trust as any religious one – it cannot be proved, nor can it claim to be the only rational view of the world. It also misses the very point of secularism which is to ensure freedom of belief and the practice of belief. In this country procedural secularism was largely invented by Christians in the nonconformist tradition to ensure such religious freedom.

It is one thing for the judge to uphold the dismissal on the grounds that Mr. MacFarlane’s views were preventing him from doing the job for which he was employed, but quite another to dismiss the basis of his views or their right to respected and consideration under the law.

Democratic Christians or Christian Democrats?

I’m preparing a quiz on the Election to use at our International Students’ Café this week. Some of the students are from countries with strong constitutional democracies – like USA or France, others come from states without democracy as we understand it. Has democracy become the sacred cow of our politics? It is all too easy to assume that government of the people, for the people, by the people is the very goal and highest achievement of society. I’ve got two problems with this – firstly Britain isn’t really a democracy in that sense anyway so let’s not get too self righteous: our sovereign and one of our two chambers of government are not elected. Secondly, as Christian I advocate and defend democracy as the least worst option in government, it provides the checks and balances needed in human society to prevent one group dominating another, it enables us to get rid of bad government and to seek the common good, but it cannot guarantee good government. In a democracy the people get the government they deserve.

There is nothing divinely ordained about this system.

Nor is the church a democracy – it is a body (at least in my corner of the vineyard) which makes full use of democracy as an excellent tool to find the mind of Christ by consulting the people of Christ. When we vote in church we are trying to find out what God is saying to us rather than expressing our rights as citizens of heaven or simply going along with the majority. It’s far from perfect, but I believe it to be a way God can speak to us.

What is God saying to us as a nation and how can we express that through our voting….. tricky….

Methodist Synods - Act of God or Work of the Devil?

Over 25 years I’ve seen synods (our regional District gatherings) change from being extremely dull but important decision making bodies in which real Christian diversity was debated and expressed, to meetings with no real business to do and in which different opinions are almost suppressed. We now have a discipline of attending a meeting which is mainly social in character. Consequently synods no longer express our diversity but are more about creating a common culture in which we are all expected to develop similar tastes. I’ve never shared Methodism’s assumptions about what my social tastes should be (how many men of working age attend church socials willingly?). It saddens me that these social tastes do seem to get confused with fellowship. It feels like fellowship is being made into wanting to be together because we all like doing the same things, when really it’s about being together dealing with our differences.

Perversely the old dull debates did actually do that and the shared culture they fostered was one of a way of dealing with differences graciously. Having dismantled most of those structures (which did need change) I fear what we may be left with is not Methodism as a way of doing things which holds together a diverse Christian people (a genuine “discipline” worthy of our attendance), but Methodism as a particular set of Christian tastes into which we are enculturating one another.

Incidentally I was one of only a handful of people who voted against the creation of a London Methodist District. We used to have four London districts based on a sound mission principle uniting inner city, suburban and rural areas in each region whereas the new district is based on a supposed unity of identity for London (not on diversity).

Of course all this may blog may reveal is that I am very skilled at providing pseudo-theological justifications for being a grumpy old man who woudl rather go out and ride his motorbike on a sunny saturday than spend it in yet another church meeting