Do I have a right to vote?

The BBC website today has an article on the effect of religious issues on people's voting.  While I thought the article itself  stated the situation pretty fairly, one of the comments by a member of the public below it struck me.

"Religion has no place in politics. If religion (of any kind) influences your vote, you should have your right to vote revoked."

Well then, my right to vote would have to be revoked.  But why should this be the case?  Other commentors cited examples of far-right American politics and the Middle East as examples of why religion and politics should be kept separate.  I can understand that.  And indeed the idea of people who vote one way or another just because they're told to, without considering for themselves, is something I intensely dislike.  Or voting for a candidate just because he or she professes faith, whether or not that's visible in their policies. 

But my beliefs do influence my vote.  Don't everybody's?  Whether you believe in a God or not, in deciding to vote for candidate A or party B in any election you decide based on your beliefs.  That might be something like believing that students shouldn't have to pay for tuition fees, that banning people from B&B's because of their sexuality is wrong, that people shouldn't be detained without trial. 

My political beliefs are influenced by my religious beliefs.  For example, there's plenty in the bible about caring for the stranger within your country, about helping the poor and families in distress.  So when I look at who to vote for I look at which candidate or party best reflects these teachings.  There's no one party in mainstream British politics at the moment who I agree with on every issue, but I prayerfully consider which I feel is closest to how I believe God would want people to live and the country to be run. 

That means Christians have to engage in politics, reading about and listening to candidates, asking questions, trying to see through the spin and publicity on all sides to what the party really believes, what their values are.  One of the saddest things I feel about politics is when parties seem to be willing to say or do anything to anything to get themselves elected, rather than standing for principals on an issue. 

Of course not all Christians agree on which party best reflects Christian values, because different Christian traditions see different parts of Christian teaching as more important than others and focus on those.  For example, one party might loose support from some Christians for focusing on helping people whatever their marital state or sexual orientation, while other Christians will support it for showing Christ's sacrificial, unconditional love to the community.  That's a matter of individual choice.

So yes, my faith does influence the way I vote.  But I don't see what's wrong with that, since I would hope that everyone votes on the basis of what they believe in (even if it's just that they believe 'the other lot' are wrong).  If you were to say that letting your belief affect your vote disqualifies you from voting, you'd be undermining the whole principal of democracy, surely?

PS I wrote on a similar subject last year, if you're interested. 

Growing up

It appears I am actually, despite all appearances, (and some people's opinions) growing up.  Recently I was getting worried that I might be turning into my father, since I'd noticed some of his traits and temprament in myself.  Not a good thing.  I'm hoping some recent events were mostly a biproduct of being stressed and not an actual trend towards getting angry when things didn't go right. 

And yet now it seems I was wrong.  I actually appear to be turning into my mother.  Sometimes I sound like her, talk about the same things, laugh like her, even sometimes look like her or use her expressions.  For ages it's been a joke amongst some of my friends that I'm something of a parent (ever since I started counting people when we were in Edinburgh a few years ago...).  It probably has something to do with me almost invariably being the one who notices when the house is low on toilet roll, or a bill needs paying; and always having a tissue or safety pin.

For the last two or three years I've been going through what my friends and I call 'the marriage phase' where pretty much everyone I knew at uni or from church was getting married.  Nowadays I struggle to think of couples among my friends who've been together more than a couple of months and who aren't married or engaged.  Not that this is a bad thing at all, it's just one of those phases.

But it seems this phase is beginning to come to an end.  So far there's only four or so weddings of couples I know happening this year.  It's moving on.  The 'baby phase' is beginning.  Several couples, mostly two or three years older than me but including one where the wife is younger than me, are having or have had their first child this year.

It's interesting to observe.  It's even more interesting to see on Facebook that people from my year at secondary school have children  who are now several years old.  And yet at least one friend is still surprised by the youth of the brides/grooms/parents who are a year or two older than me.  Is there an 'average' age for these things?  My circle of friends is affected by the number of Christians (especially of the evangelical, no sex outside marriage, sort) and perhaps this distorts the numbers in favour of early marriage.  But the age of the couple leaving full time education seems to affect this too, as many of those I knew who left school at 16 or 18 are already parents compared to those who I know from university. 

Perceptions of the family, and therefore the ages of each stage have changed throughout history.  What 'family' can be said to mean now is an endless debate.  I was amused to realise that according to official surveys and suchlike, I would probably be considered the head of my 'household' as the main income earner.  Is that why I seem to be taking on the role of a parent?  I doubt it- I think it's just the curse of being well organised!

So do I mind that I'm turning into my mother?  Not really.  It seems I'm destined to 'mother' the people around me, to care about them and worry about them, to try to help and look after them.  But it could be worse!

Easter responses: Thomas

It's my blog's second birthday!  So to celebrate, another post in my series on responses to Easter, this time thinking about the apostle Thomas.

Thomas is known as 'the doubter,' but is this really fair?  Although on several occassions in the gospels he is recorded as being cautious and possible sceptical about whether something really can or has happened he also makes one of the braver statements that came out of the apostles: "Let us go also, that we may die with him" (John 11, v16).  Jesus, against the advice and warnings of his friends that the religious establishment were out to get him, was determined to set out for Jerusalem and Bethany, knowing what was eventually in store for him and determined to obey his father's will.  Thomas is the one who voices the disciples' intention to stay with their teacher through thick and thin.  Perhaps it shows his trust that Jesus is the one who will save them. 

Of course, it didn't happen, and the disciples were scattered, frightened and ashamed.  The first news of the resurrection must have just confused them more, adding to the uncertainty they felt.  What were they to do now?  Were they safe?  Was they journey Jesus had led them on over?  Had he failed?

Then he appeared to them, and they believed.  He had not failed, he had risen.  Their doubts and fear were swallowed up in joy- for now.  But Thomas was not there, he missed it.  He remained sceptical.  Understandably, really.  How hard do you find it to believe that someone you have seen killed has risen from the dead?  Even if your friends tell you it's true?  If you are a Christian, think how hard you would find it to believe this if you weren't, and maybe you'll be a bit closer to understanding how hard some people find it to comprehend the resurrection.

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."  We often think this reprove applies only to Thomas.  Yet the other disciples also believed because they had seen.  Surely it applies to them as much as to him. 

But Thomas and his doubt perhaps can help us see how Jesus responds today to those who have real doubts.   Perhaps those of us who already believe forget quite how hard it can be to accept the truth about Jesus for the first time.  Jesus sees that Thomas wants to believe, sees what is in the way of this belief- presumably his logical thinking that no one who was dead could be walking around alive*- and reaches out to him with a personal, even physical, response. 

Today a lot of people still struggle to accept that the gospel account of Jesus' death and resurrection can be true, struggle with thinking that it's not logical, that it doesn't make sense, that it is against reason.  And it is, except for one thing; that this is God we're dealing with, and God doesn't obey the same natural laws as the rest of us. But often- perhaps always- the only way for people to realise this, to overcome their logical reasons, is for God to step down into our world, as he did with Thomas, and meet them.  Maybe not a physical encounter like with Thomas, maybe through a sense, a feeling, an experience.  Maybe through a friend, a church service, a book, or a song.  Something that makes you realise God is there, and that he's real.  Perhaps you won't understand how it's real, but you'll know it is.



*Even though Thomas had presumable seen Lazarus raised from the dead.  The disciples seem to have had quite short memories- but then would you or I do any better in the trust stakes?  I don't think I would!

Appraisal time

It's that time of year again- appraisals month at work.  Everyone gets given a sheet of questions to think about and answer, then you have an interview with someone more senior and discuss it and any concerns they have with you.  I know I shouldn't complain too much, I think it's a healthy thing to do, but at the same time it can be difficult and awkward.  I struggle to work out how to answer the questions without offending anyone, or making it sound like I'm lazy (or that I'm too keen) without actually lying.  Then they try and set targets.  Do you know how hard it is to set an identifiable target for a receptionist without getting really petty? 

To cheer me up, here are some of the pre-appraisal questions, and what I might like to answer...


Which part of the job interests you most?
Umm...payday?  The internet?

Which part interests you least?
The actual work (when there is any).
Or possibly answering these questionnaires.

How do you feel you have performed in the last year?
Well, a hundred or so blog posts, a 60,000+ word story (and some other writings), a lot of minutes and business connected with running a G&S society  isn't bad for a year's work, I guess.  Oh, you mean actual office activities.  Umm...ok I guess.

Which areas of your job are you unclear about?
Why you continually don't give me anything else to do, even when I've asked.  Surely there must be something?  Or are you really happy just to pay me to sit here and twiddle my thumbs?

Do you posess skills, knowlegdge or experience acquired elsewhere of which we do not make full use?
Yes.  Do you really want a list?  I have a degree, for starters.  I can type with more than two fingers, and know how to use email.  I know how to clean a bathroom, which is more than the current cleaner does...Could I sing to entertain clients in the waiting room?  Or give minature lectures on European History?

Does your job description properly describe your duties and responsibilities?
Well, yes.  We only revieved it six months ago.  But put together they take up less than a quarter of the time I'm at work for.

Do you feel that you could take on other responsibilities?
What's the point in asking me this?  I said yes the last two times I did this form, and you haven't given me any.  I'd like a chance to learn some new skills or develop the ones I have so I stand some chance of getting another job.  As it is, I can't even get one on the same level as this.

Where would you like to be in one year and five years' time?
Reallistically, in a job where I earn enough not to have to worry every month about whether there will be enough to pay the household bills, and where I can do something vaugely interesting or at least useful to someone.
Ideally, not having to go to an office every day but being able to do the things I like...reading, writing, church stuff... I wonder if there's any way I can get paid for doing those things...
But at the moment, I'd settle for still having a job.

Targets for the next six months:
Finish writing Misplaced.
Apply for other jobs.
Attempt not to get depressed about lack of progress with life or with the failure to be taken seriously by people; and attempt not to get upset at being continually forgotten and not considered for things I know I can do.

Now I suppose I should get on with writing my real answers to the questions...

Easter responses: Mary

I get cross when people say that women weren't important in the early church; the very first person to see the risen Christ was a woman (and one with probably something of a shady- in the eyes of the religious establishment- past).  I've heard that under Jewish law at the time the testimony of a single woman was not valid- yet it mattered to Jesus that the first people to see him were women.

The accounts given in the four gospels differ slightly in their accounts of who was there.  Matthew says it was Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary,' probably the one Mark and Luke describe as the mother of James, (one of the twelve).  Mark adds in a woman called Salome, Luke ommitts her but includes a Joanna.  All agree, however, that a group of women who had been followers of Jesus went to the tomb early in the morning on that first day of the week, to check on Jesus' body and to annoint it with spices as was the custom of the day, but which they hadn't been able to do before because of the Sabbath.  They were grieving, probably afraid of the authorities- the male disciples are described as basically hiding- but they were devoted enough to risk danger to do this last service for their dead leader.

Matthew tells us how the women are greeted by an angel who tells them that Jesus is not there, he has risen!  "Afraid yet filled with joy" they run off to find the disciples when they are met by Jesus himself.  He comforts them, accepts their worship, and gives them a new task, to give the disciples a message.  Luke tells us that the disciples thought their words seemed like nonsense.  Well, they would to you, if someone told you that the person who you knew had been killed was now alive.  The women were excited, joyful, so different to the grief and fear of a few hours before. 

John gives an account which is slightly different from the others.  He shows us an encounter between Mary Magdalene alone and Jesus, where she does not at first recognise who he is because of her grief.  Not until he calls her by name does she recognise him and respond, "Teacher!"  Again her grief and fear give way to joy.  It's a beautiful little scene, and the detail of his calling her by name reminds me of the loving care God has for each individual. 

Mary is willing to accept the evidence of her experience, to believe that Jesus really has been raised from the dead.  She knows that this is a special person, someone who she was devoted to in life and someone who she was willing to take risks for by going to the tomb.  He had healed her in life (Mark 16 v9) and now he had done far more than that- although probably she didn't realise that yet- by dying on the cross.  She responds to the resurrection in wonder, with excitement, with joy, with love, and above all with belief. 

Do we ever feel these emotions when we think about the resurrection?  Or are we so used to the idea that it has lost its wonder?  How often do we get excited about what God has done?  And how often do we respond with joy and with love and praise?  I know I don't always.  That's something to think about this Easter.

Easter responses: Peter

Peter is a disciple that many people find it easy to identify with.  Certainly that's something I feel.  Perhaps it's because he often doesn't get things right.  One moment he's being told he is the rock on which the church will be built, the next he's being told 'get behind me, Satan!'  He promises that he won't abandon Jesus, but before morning he's already denied his Lord three times.  Like I said yesterday, it's all too easy to condemn the disciples without knowing how we would react to if we were in danger because of our faith.  And Peter's story is one that can give us hope. 

Peter's impulsiveness led him to be the first to make connections and declarations of loyalty, but it also got him into trouble.  He fails Jesus on the night before his crucifixion, despite his earlier confidence in himself.  He starts off well, daring to follow Jesus to the high priest's house, but once people notice him and start asking questions that could lead to his being arrested too he falls to pieces. (John 18, v15-18 and 25-27.)  Matthew tells us that Peter "wept bitterly" when he realised what he'd done.  I know there have been times when I've said or done something that denies Jesus' lordship of my life, and sometimes I've realised afterwards and deeply regretted it. 

And yet Jesus forgives Peter and reassures him that he is still part of his plan.  In John 21 we have a description of an encounter where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him, mirroring the three times Peter betrayed him.  And each time Jesus gives him a commission to care for his 'flock,' for the church.  And he hints at how Peter will serve him in the future.  Peter, who had denied Jesus to save his own skin, would eventually be executed for continuing to spread the good news of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.

This encounter follows on from yet another miracle, (as if Jesus' appearance wasn't miracle enough!) that is reminiscent of one Jesus performed when he first called Peter.  Perhaps it hints at a new beginning and a reminder of that first call to become 'fishers of men;' at how far the disciples have come and yet how far they still have to go.  Perhaps it hints that from now on they must rely on God to provide for them, and at the presence of the Holy Spirit who will soon come to them and strengthen them.  It is because they have the Spirit helping them that the disciples are able to achieve all that is done in spreading the gospel, and through the Spirit's help that many of them, including Peter, are able to stand firm in their faith and by martyred.  His self-confidence had failed him- he knew now that he needed God's help.

It's through the Holy Spirit's help that even the most timid of us (and that's me!) can dare to serve Jesus, can dare to take risks to spread his good news.  Risks in giving our money to charity or the church, risks in inviting friends to come to church or in talking to them about our faith, risks in practical service.  In some parts of the world Christians still risk their lives just by believing.  In this country we might be risking our reputation- our friends may think we're weird religious freaks, even that we're dangerous.  But after what Jesus did for us, shouldn't we try to take those risks?  But the best thing is to know that when we fail, he will, like with Peter, help us get up and start again.

Easter responses: the disciples- and us.

This is the first of a series of posts on the responses of different people to the events of Easter- to Jesus' death and resurrection.  Hopefully thinking about how the different actors in the story responded will help us think about our own response.

It's easy to condemn the disciples.  They were with Jesus continuously for about three years, heard him talk, saw his miracles, and yet when it came to the test, they failed.  Badly.  All of them.

They sat at the last supper, listening to Jesus' talk of what would happen to him without understanding.  They followed him to the garden of Gethsemane, but they fell asleep.  They talked big about their loyalty to Jesus- but ran away when the authorities turned up to arrest him.

It's easy to condemn the disciples for their stupidity, their lack of action.  But  would we be any better?  I don't think so, really.  Maybe some of us would.  I'm not sure I want to find out what I would do in a life or death situation.  But I'm no hero.

The difference now is that we know what happened next.  Jesus didn't stay dead, he rose!  Knowing that, we have less excuse than the disciples for not doing what we know we should for Jesus because we know that he won.  And we have the holy Spirit to help us.

And yet the disciples were forgiven, were accepted back into Jesus' friendship and given the task of building the church.  Even Peter (more on that tomorrow).  Despite their failure (and presumably the knowledge that they might fail again) they were still willing to take risks for Christ.  In the same way God forgives us for all the times we let him down, all the times we pass up on an opportunity to stand up for him.  Thank God for that!