Pictures from Passiontide at Trafalgar Square - Good Friday

It seems quite an obvious thing to state but I always need to feel a certain amount of sadness, a jolt if you like of the senses, on Good Friday to have empathy with the suffering of Christ. Today it came from my first witness of a Passiontide. Thousands of people watched two performances at Trafalgar Square.

It was a testament to the power of Christianity despite the copious amount of debate over the decline in numbers of Church attendance and the alleged irrelevancy of the faith that people watched in awe, in tears and clapped at the end.

 In fact, the most astounding evidence of this came after the play ended when the actor who played Jesus was mobbed for well over an hour as people jostled to shake his hand and take pictures with him. 

Celebrating Mothering on International Women's Day

As a Christian feminist I am celebrating Mothering as part of International Women's Day because, in the feminism debate, the pro-choice feminists have locked up the abortion issue as an absolutist one. If you disagree with them then you cannot be a feminist. Mothering is never mentioned as a viable option in the 'choice' debate and termination, instead, is the dominant factor. As a Christian mother I want to celebrate pregnancy, the birth of a baby and the subsequent nurturing years as a joyous fact of being a mother.

I recognise that abortion is necessary in some circumstances for both medical and psychological reasons. This is the stance of the Church of England. What I abhor is the way abortion is presented as a lifestyle choice riding on a wave of a woman's right to choose. Quite often, in reality, some women who are considering abortion are doing so because they have been abandoned by their partners or are single and fear being stigmatised.  There is no level playing field of 'choice' for these women. An abortion often leaves women feeling bereft. Quite why the pro-choice lobby presents it as something being akin to a carefree choice is a conundrum.

The whole issue was reignited last week by the publication of a paper written by two ethicists titled: 'After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?'. Dr Francesca Minerva, University of Melbourne, and Dr Alberto Giublini, University of Milan, state their case as follows:
'Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call 'after birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.'


So, along with infanticide, gendercide and abortion comes an academic fashioned debate on the termination of babies already born. The case for abortion is extrapolated in the paper to babies born after birth because, as the argument goes, neither a baby or a fetus has the moral status of being a person in a morally relevant sense; and because it is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potential to become a person in the morally relevant sense. A baby only has the potential to become a person, therefore the eradication of it does not result in any loss.

In fact, the entire logic of the paper is predicated on the basis that if abortions are allowed to be carried out on unborn babies then why not extend the act to babies post-birth because neither has personhood status. The state of being a viable human being is not enough. The circumstances in which post birth abortion, killing I call it, can be carried out involves inconvenience. The rights of the mother, existing children and father triumph over the baby's right so if the baby is considered to be inconvenient post-birth and will pose a burden to existing members of the family then it is justification enough to kill it.

All babies have a value and that includes the lifecyle of conception to birth and beyond. I use the word 'value' here to indicate a viable life. Any pregnancy scan will testify to this. This is why we clutch our black and white ultrasound pictures of our unborn babies with joy after each scan. It shows a life growing and waiting to be born.

Celebrating Mothering today is about remembering the joy of new life and praying for the little ones who didn't make it.

London version of 'Indecent Proposal' . Remember the movie?

'An Indecent Proposal' was a film that ignited debate among women as to how far they they would go to make ends meet. In the movie, Demi Moore was happily married to Woody Harrelson. Unfortunately, they hit bad financial times and there was no money to pay the mortgage. Along came the dishy Robert Redford who offered them $1 million dollars in return for a night of passion with Demi.

After much soul searching Demi and Woody decide to accept the deal. Demi is whisked off in millionaire Robert's helicopter by his personal staff to a secret location for the deed to be performed. When Demi comes back the next day with the $1 million in the bank Woody has changed his mind about the morals of the deal and the issue of faithfulness creeps into the marriage leading to a break up.

Demi goes off with Robert Redford and enters a glamorous world of expensive chic. Unfortunately, woody Woody Harrelson comes back at the end of the movie to woo her back. He does this by bidding the same $1 million dollars at a Save the Wildlife auction (or something like thta) at which Demi and dishy Robert are in attendance. The picture above captures the moment when they realise who has outbid every body else.

In the numerous written articles, tv and radio debates that followed the movie many women said they would do what Demi did for far less. A friend of mine was serious about sleeping with someone for £1,000 if offered because her family finances were so dire.

Life does imitate art as the saying goes and the imitation can occur in far less salubrious settings, as I discovered today. A young couple were arguing quite violently (verbally and pushing each other) by Charing Cross station. He was attempting to walk away while she kept holding on to his jacket and pulling him back. Their exchange was nothing as erudite as in the movie. It consisted off her saying, 'don't walk away' followed by swear words. Finally he said, in between swear words, 'why ...did you...sleep with...two months ago? You are my...girlfriend'. She replied, 'to ...put...a roof over...our heads. That's why I did it'.

Indecent Proposal it was, one of my favourite movies, right before my eyes played out in a grubby London alleyway beside that bastion of British business, Boots.

A Missed Anglican Moment - Occupy

I watched the eviction of the Occupy St. Paul’s camp live on TV and have followed the coverage of it today. The words ‘Go Figure’, in American parlance, came to me.

The people who were praying and seeking the guardianship of St. Paul’s during the eviction were the protesters. People who are pleased that the protesters have gone described their glee in terms of St. Paul’s being a ‘magnificent Wren building’, as a ‘historical building’ or ‘as tourist site’ that was not allowed to be touristed (I made this word up). So the situation is as follows. The lovers of architecture and tourists had been deprived all these months of visiting a building while, in the meantime, the people who were camped right outside waited and waited and waited for Christian charity. The building in question is a church. ‘Go figure’. See what I mean?

Somewhere along the continuum line of protest and authority lies the difference between the message of Jesus and the means by which the message is conveyed (nice building). The church had the authority to be master of its’ actions. The resignations that happened were as a result of internal conduct towards an external situation. The protesters did not call for resignations to occur. I know of Christians who have blamed the Occupy movement for the resignations that happened at St.Paul’s and, seemingly, what they are saying is that the church ought not to be sullied by contemporary issues. Yesterday was another opportunity to put things right. ‘Go figure’.

Symon Hill and Jonathan Bartley from Ekklesia, the Christian think tank, were present last night at the eviction and were praying when they were told to move on by the police. Mr Bartley alleges that St.Paul’s was complicit in all this. You can read his account here and watch the video above. 

Here’s my answer to‘Go Figure'. The Anglican Church as represented by St.Paul’s missed another opportunity to demonstrate a sense of Christian purpose.  They could have been bold and exerted some authority to ensure that nothing happened on their steps or on their roofs. They didn’t. For a faith that claims to represent everyone, well, it didn't. 

74 Deaths By Indifference

A lack of nutrition, hydration, pain relief and a general deficit in the level of nursing care provided to disabled people has resulted in 74 needless deaths so far in the UK. 'Death by indifference: 74 deaths and counting'  is a report published by Mencap this week on the disgraceful situation. I have a special interest in disability issues because I am Chair of a charity called Powerhouse for women with learning disabilities.

The report ought to come with a warning of the anger that one will feel upon reading it, especially when one considers the context for the report. In 2007 Mencap published a report of a similar title which reported of the deaths of 6 people due to a lack of care by the authorities. An investigation was subsequently conducted by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and safety measures were implemented. Five years later the problem seems to be a growing one rather than one being actively tackled.

One of the case studies in the report is about David Tait who died aged 49. He had a moderate to severe learning disability and lived in a supported living service. He had strong family connections and went on holidays with them. He loved Christmas. One day David suffered 3 seizures and was rushed to hospital with an abnormal heart rhythm reading done by the ambulance staff. Unfortunately, this report was not given to the hospital. David's mother tried to tell the hospital about this but David was only treated for asthma rather than for his heart problem. He died of a heart attack 12 days before Christmas in 2010.

The Equality Act 2010 was passed to make disability a protected characteristic. What this means in practice is that a disabled person cannot legally be treated any different from an able bodied person. What the contents of Mencap's report shows, however, is that no amount of legal rules can act as a barrier to discrimination. Instead, there is a huge deficit in our society of discrimination and apathy towards people with learning disabilities who are suffering from the three strikes of: (a) hate crime; (b)welfare cuts; and (c) poor medical care.

We do not all need to function in the same way and look the same to be valued and treated as human beings. 

Bishops Accused of Not Being So Christian

John Bird, founder and editor of The Big Issue, writes in today's Times newspaper that the Bishops who voted against the Government's welfare reforms in the House of Lords yesterday 'are not so Christian after all'. The Bishops voted against the figure of £26,000 being the cap on benefits being paid out to famlies.
Mr Bird says that being Christian does not involve giving to people what you do not have i.e in a time of austerity there are no big bucks to pay out to families on welfare.

In the book, The Spirit Level, which spawned a global debate on inequality, it is stated that inequality corrodes trust and divides people. Inequality is a powerful social divider and imbeds a 'them and us' mentality in people. Public opinion over the welfare reform is very divided and is a powerful example of how those who have jobs are pointing accusatory fingers at those who don't.

However, the former dangerously forgets that 'them' is comprised of groups of people who have physical disabilities, physical illnesses, mental disabilities and, that one of 'us', could be 'them' at the drop of a hat. Disabilities and illnesses can, unfortunately, be acquired through time and passage of age. It is not just a birth defect.

If and when that happens I want to know that the Church stood up for 'us' and tried to inject some compassion into the arguments. It saddens me that the welfare system has become a battle ground because helping the poor need not be about creating a class of permanent poor.

Bishops in Welfare Reform

Bishops sitting in the House of Lords tonight have put up a super fight for the rights of children in the vote on the Welfare Reform Bill. The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, is receiving a lot of attention particularly because he has been most vocal about the level of inequality suffered by children living in poverty. The following is an extract from the Guardian blog:

"This amendment is about children, who cannot directly speak for themselves. One of my roles is to speak up for those who have no voice, and that fits in with my own Christian commitment. Christianity is deeply concerned with the way in which we treat others in our society and especially those in most need. And I would also say that from the beginning of the discussion about how to cope with the financial crisis and what cuts we needed to apply, I've always been clear that cuts should be borne by those who can bear them, not by those who cannot."

On the austerity agenda more widely, he says "I believe that the government and parliament have been in a very difficult position in terms of reacting to the crisis and therefore establishing the cuts. I do not doubt that cuts are necessary, but I believe as I said that they should be borne by those that can bear them".

"I think that we need to be very careful in a whole range of areas, of which welfare reform is one, health and social care would be another, issues concerned with legal aid would be another - to make sure that those who most need the provisions which we give as a nation are able to access them."

Whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of having church of England bishops revise legislation, there's no doubt that with John Packer, we're getting our money's worth.