Patronising? Don't worry your ugly little head about it.

Having lived in York for almost eight years now, I consider myself as a northerner by adoption.  My pronunciations of 'grass' and 'class' are faultless, I like chips and gravy, I talk disparagingly about soft southerners who panic at the merest sprinkling of snow.  But there's one supposedly northern trait I can't quite accept.

As my job involves answering phone calls, I come across this quite a lot.  And that is probably part of the problem, since on the phone it's difficult to judge if someone is being patronising or just friendly.  Especially when they have a heavy accent (Yorkshire is fine, and I'm getting the hang of the varieties of the Newcastle/ Durham area, but sometimes it's just too much.).  Can you tell what it is yet?

It's the northern tendency to describe the person they're talking to as 'luv' or similar.

I've heard this tendency described (by both southerners and northerners) as 'endearing' and 'friendly' and I'm sure that much of the time that's how it is intended.  The trouble is, most of the people describing it in that way are male.  If you're a young female and are being described as 'darling' by someone who is older and acts as if he's incredibly superior to you, it's not quite the same as when a middle aged lady is helpful in a shop.  I don't mind the latter kind.  What I object to is when the speaker is being partonising.  I got called 'darling' about seven times in the course of a minute long phone call yesterday.  If that's friendlyness, it's excessive to the point of creepy when it's from a man I don't know. 

It's worse if it's at work.  I have to be polite, which is seen as encouraging.  I can't challenge patronising behaviour.  I can't even report it to senior staff- what can I report?  A client was overly friendly?  I felt uncomfortable?  I'd just get told to grow up/ calm down, unless it was serious enough to claim sexual harrassment- and it's not, really.  Sometimes it's genuine friendliness which I may have just misinterpreted, sometimes the person patronising might not be aware of how they're coming across.  

But sometimes it is genuinely patronising.  Perhaps it's less of a northern thing, and more of a class thing.  Because I am a receptionist, typically a low skilled and low paid job.  A lot of our clients are people who are pretty well off- business owners, professionals.  And although by no means universally, some people do seem to regard me and people like me as unworthy of equal treatment.  Class may not be determined by birth, but it is often, on an every day level, determined by money.    

A question

Amidst all the furore over the debate on women bishops, could I ask a question, hoping that someone out there with more knowledge than I can answer it?  Does anyone have any figures showing what percentage of the Church of England is opposed to women bishops?  Not just synod, or clergy, but the feeling among actual church members?  Because I think that's something which has got lost. 

Most of the comment we've heard has come from bishops and clergy, or at most lay members of synod.  And I think as a result the proportion of people opposed has been overstated.  I'd be interested to hear more of the 'view from the pew'.  The internet and blogs are good for that, but most recently have understandably been commenting on the views expressed in synod.  What do ordinary people think?  Has anyone even asked? 

So if anyone can point me towards information, please let me know.

The buses are back!

Remember the fuss over atheist slogans on buses a while ago?  Well, now religious bus posters are in the news again.  The group Catholic Women's Ordination have decided to put up bus posters urging the pope to ordain women as priests, during his visit to Britain later this year. 

I don't expect Benedict will even see any, but it will raise the issue's profile.  While I don't like to see fellow Christians of whatever banner humiliated or embarrassed, I think this is a good thing.  The Roman Catholic church has made some almost schoolboy errors in dealing with this topic, notably the recent stories about classifying attempted ordination of a woman on a par with child abuse.  Unfortunately, while the Roman Catholic church's welcome attempt to show that it was taking child abuse seriously was entirely overshadowed when they  announced that ordaining women was, similarly, a serious offence against the church.

Leaving aside the question of whether ordaining women is right or wrong, I can see why they're concerned people would ignore the church's authority and that given the sensitive, controvertial nature of the issue they'd want it to be dealt with by the highest central authority.  That makes sense (more or less, if you consider women's ordination an important issue as they do).  It also makes sense to have priestly child abuse dealt with by the highest central authority.  What dosn't make sense is to appear to link them together in documents to go to the press.  That's not good PR, and surely someone should have noticed (see this for more comment). 

But the C of E's recent arguments show us that we've got nothing to be complacent about.  Personally I've been getting annoyed when 'evangelical' is almost invariably used to mean 'conservative.'  Yes, some evangelicals are.  I'm not.  Nor are quite a lot of others, at least on the issue of women bishops.  The church contains a wide variety of views.  Please don't paint us all with the same brush!

Synod's choice

I'm trying to summon up enough enthusiasm to write about last weekend's Church of England synod and what their decisions about ordaining women as bishops mean.  But in a way everything seems to have been said.  The synod have probably made the best of a not terribly good job, and decided to risk offending traditionalists so much that they leave the C of E, in return for giving women bishops, when they finally appear, the same status as men.

Of course it will be very sad if this decision causes people to leave the church.  Jesus taught us to pray for unity among Christians, and it's hard to be unified- or even to pray for unity- when you are caught up in a bitter struggle the meaning of Biblical texts.  Perhaps, some say, we should compromise for the sake of unity- that both sides should compromise as far as they can, out of love for each other and for God, out of grace, to prevent a damaging split.  That, if I am correct, is what the amendment proposed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York was an attempt to do, an attempt to salve the consciences of those who feel they cannot submit to a woman's authority; so that while those in favour would accept that another, male, bishop would care for the traditionalists, the traditionalists would recognise the validity of women bishops in principal.

But there are other considerations.  It has been said, with much truth, that the church exists for the benefit of non-members (admittedly it often doesn't seem like that's the case!).  Obviously a an organisation that is constantly arguing with itself isn't showing a very good image to outsiders.  But then neither is an organisation that, from most outsiders and indeed most insiders' point of view, is still practicing sexism. 

Obviously I'm not saying that the church (any church, not just the C of E) should just give in to society's pressures and accept society's values.  That would leave us with no integrity.  But if we want the church to be an active, outward looking community, we need to show that every member is valued.  That means weighing up the choice of offending some of your membership, or looking increasingly old fashioned, irrelevant and unpalatable to those outside (and a large number within).  It's not a choice to make lightly, or without much prayer, and I think synod have been thinking and praying about this for a long time.  No one should be going into that kind of debate wanting to cause trouble or make things nasty, any sort of split should cause sorrow on both sides.  But perhaps to agree to disagree, and not to rule out the possibility of working together in the future, is a better solution than to continue to argue, which can be more divisive.

Of course, probably a better option is to accept, gracefully, the arrangements that the synod has agreed on. But given that the media much prefer a story about disagreement than about acceptance and co-operation, I doubt we'll hear so much about the parishes and people who do just that.  The church (perhaps because as a friend of mine said; "the more liberal people are, the more likely they are to feel the opposition should have a say, and less likely to make absolutist remarks.") isn't great at presenting the positive story.  But I look forward to when the first women bishops are ordained, and hope that it will be celebrated as the milestone it deserves to be.

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.

Green feminists

I was listening to the radio earlier and heard an interesting discussion on a statement that seemed to me at first to be ridiculous.  The statement was the idea that environmentalism* was anti-feminist.

The speakers talked about how much** of the advice given to the public on green issues seems to focus on the home and on tasks that, traditionally, have been women's work.  For example, shopping and cooking using local produce and fewer packaged ready meals.  Or using washable nappies rather than disposable ones.  The point was made that this might be all very well for middle class families where the mother doesn't work- spending time every day shopping and washing etc- but for lower income families who can't afford all that, or where both parents work (or single parent families) where they can't afford the time, it's a sometimes unaffordable struggle.

I have to say that part of me was thinking that perhaps we take our modern time-saving appliances too much for granted.  Perhaps sometimes it's a case of not being bothered rather than not actually having the time.  But I'm also sympathetic, especially to the cost argument.  And I was intrigued by the thought that women are affected more than men.  Women have, over the past century, benefited most from the rise in appliances to shorten the time and effort going into housekeeping.  It has given them freedom from domestic slavery.

The fear some of the interviewees had was that by increasing the amount of time spent on housework you would increase the burden on women, many of whom already struggle to cope with juggling jobs and families.  You (or I, at least) can very easily be made to feel guilty because sometimes we don't do things exactly as we would like; we get takeaway instead of cooking, or drive instead of walking, because we don't have time or just can't be bothered.

So what do I think?  Well, thinking over the arguments I think the fears have been exaggerated.  It's not a reason not to make some changes in our lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly.  And yet there is a point to be made.  The care of the household and family is still often seen as women's responsibility- you could use almost the same arguments about health advice as for green issues.  The real problem seems to be that in the eyes of society and the media, women are still seen as the primary homemaker- they may well have a job too, but a woman doing most of the housework is seen as normal, while a man doing most of the housework would get some odd looks.  But (in the case of this argument) shouldn't a man be equally responsible for the environmental impact of the house where he lives?  For the food he (and his children, if he has any) eats, the time and energy involved in running the house?

So it's back to the old question of how to change people's attitudes and unconscious prejudices- I sometimes find myself making judgements about people because they are male or female, and then realising that I have no basis whatsoever for thinking that other than unconsciously assigning roles to people based on their gender.  But I think there is some cause for hope even in that- I realise that the judgements I'm making are flawed.  Society is changing its' opinion- slowly and with a long way to go yet, but it is happening.



*by which I mean trying to live in an environmentally friendly, 'green' way.
**I'm not mentioning green transport because I don't feel it's relevant to this discussion- if men have (traditionally) more influence in the personal car market, women probably are more frequent users of public transport.

Thinly-veiled fear of 'difference'?

The French government are debating whether to ban veils that cover the face, worn by some Muslim women, in public buildings.  As someone who's both a woman and person of faith (and a faith that isn't innocent when it comes to oppressing women) this is something I feel uncomfortable with.  I know that covering the face (head covering is a different issue, albeit one the French have already dabbled in, and something I suspect they'll go eventually further with if they carry the day on face covering) has roots in culture as much as in religion.  But I don't think that matters.

Women who wear the niquab (veil covering the face but not the eyes) and burka (which covers the whole face and body) in the West tend to do so out of choice.  Perhaps that choice is the result of the culture they grew up in, perhaps it is a genuine religious belief.  I don't feel I've got a right to tell them what to wear.  Especially I don't feel I have a right to tell them they can't wear something they believe they should.  I'm more inclined to defend their right to wear what they like.  Why should covering their face offend someone?

I understand the argument that wearing the veil limits and oppresses women.  But many, or most, women choose to wear it, not forced.  And even if some women are forced, how does banning them from facilities where they can get help help them?  Is it fair that these people are to be unable to claim benefits or get healthcare- doesn't that make them oppressed by the state?  If they feel they can't go outside because they can't cover up, I imagine some women will feel trapped in their homes.  How does that help them?

I don't like the idea that anyone can be deprived of services because of their beliefs (cultural or religious).  Majority may think it's ok, but for those who believe it's not, that's unfair.  I can't think offhand of a specific item of clothing or behaviour that is analogous with the veil or headscarf for Christians.  But if there was something I believed I should wear and the government were going to bring in a law forcing me not to wear it...I think I'd consider breaking the law.  I imagine that will happen with some French women too.

The French recommendations seem to fail to recognise that wearing the veil is for some women (I don't say all) a genuine religious choice, something which they feel they should do.  Perhaps it's partly fear of something different, something the older French generation don't understand.  Another commentator suggests they are lashing out against Muslims- and more generally, immigrants- in fear of terrorism.  If so, they're probably going to find it only makes things worse.

Categories- do they really matter that much?

A friend wrote a post recently on the controversy surrounding Caster Semenya, particularly the question of how you decide whether she (and similar cases) can compete in women's sport or men's sport.  It's an interesting question.  Since, biologically, she and many others don't easily fit into either category, how do you decide how to treat them?

The Church and the world

As I try to work out how my faith relates to the world, one question constantly reoccurs to me. That is how far faith is a personal matter, and how far it is a public one. I don't mean whether I should keep it to myself or go around shouting it from the rooftops- the answer to that is simple. I can't keep it to myself, and I don't want to, and I don't think I should. Although I don't think shouting from the rooftops is going to do much good- especially if it's me doing it- my faith affects other people from the way I talk, and live, and act, so I cannot keep it purely to myself.

What I often ask is how far I (and/ or the church) am justified in imposing my view of right and wrong on the whole of society, whose views of what is or isn't wrong may be significantly different. Just because I believe that x is wrong, does that give me the right to try to force people who do not share my beliefs not to do it? In a democracy, the majority decide (at least in theory) what is or is not illegal. Why, if the church is a minority in society, as it sadly is, should we expect the rest of society to do what we say?

That's not to say that the church should conform to society's norms and standards of what is acceptable. Far from it. The church, in its early days, was not connected to the state in any way. They did not expect governments to do as they requested. Quite the opposite- they were the ones who were often outside the law, and prepared to defy society's behavioural norms to obey God. For example, Paul in his letters has plenty to say warning the Christians in Corinth not to get dragged into the demeaning sexual practices which were associated with pagan idols.

Reformer and theologian Martin Luther recognised that even in a 'Christian country' not everyone could be ruled in the same way, and developed his 'Doctrine of the two kingdoms' to explain what the relationship between church and state should be, in his opinion. Without going into too much detail (much of which I can't remember offhand) he recognised that some people would obey God's laws through choice, while others, who do not, cannot be coerced into doing so against their free choice. While I would probably disagree with Luther in some points, I think there's a lot of truth in that. Of course, if everyone agreed to follow God's laws (always supposing they could agree on what that meant!) the world would be a better place. But being realistic, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Another point, and one which the church- often with some justice- is accused of, is of presenting what is merely culture or tradition as an article of faith. For example, the debate around women's leadership in the church has a lot to do with this, and debates over how the biblical passages referring to it are to be interpreted in the light of the culture they were originally written in and to are sadly not likely to go away any time soon.

That's not to say I don't think that leaders of the faith community, such as the archbishops of Canterbury and York shouldn't speak out, (see here) or that the church shouldn't express it's views of what's going on in the country. That's part of our duty to be salt and light to and in the world. We can state what is right and wrong. But can we expect those who don't believe to follow the same standards of behaviour as we do if they don't believe they are right? I'm not sure we can.

Would women have caused the credit crunch?

I found this article by the BBC's Robert Peston interesting in the way it touches on some of the differences between men and women. Noting that nearly all those who are, at least in the eyes of the media, to blame for the credit crunch were men, he asks whether it's just the absence of women from top jobs that has enabled them to escape blame, or whether there is a way in which perhaps women are more cautious

The difference he picks up is one of motivation: "I know very few women who measure their success in life by the size of their respective bank balances, whereas I know an astonishing number of men for whom the only thing that matters is "the score"." Although I don't think you can attribute this purely to the difference in sex, I think there is a real difference, at least in the way men and women are portrayed in media and literature, and perhaps less noticeably in real life. Men are still viewed- by themselves as much as anyone, although perhaps subconsciously- as providers, going out and winning the bread. Women are often the ones who work part time, or flexibly, adding to the household income but also combining this, often, with housework, childcare, or just the general organisation of the household.

I'm not sure that I agree that all of this is down to sex, whether genetic or cultural expectations. It's too close to the stereotypical notions of 'men's work' and 'women's work.' But I do think there is some truth in it. Cultural or not, it's generally the mother, not the father, who takes time off work to look after the kids when they are young or ill, it's generally the mother who society blames if things go wrong, before they blame the father.

Because women's motivations are different, and because, it is alleged, they think more about the consequences of decisions on people and are reluctant to take risks if people are going to get hurt, it's suggested that more influential women could change the culture at the top of banking. As Peston puts it, "men are more prone than women to simply run like a train at the goal, and never mind who's flattened along the way." Rather than some of the male traders who had detatched the 'products' they were trading from any connection with reality, and seemed to have forgotten that somewhere this would impact on people, it's suggested that women, looking at this in a different light,would have brought these traders down to earth. Whether or not that could have happened, or could happen in the future, I don't know.

I also found the point raised by some people commenting on the post interesting, when they pointed out that women were equally or even more to blame than men for the soaring levels of personal and credit card debt. Perhaps this fits in with the stereotypical idea of women as addicted to shopping and shoes. But in my experience men may buy different things (computers, TV's, gadgets, football season tickets) but I don't think their spending is that much less than womens'. It's interesting too that much debt is linked with homelife- furniture, for example- which is traditionally seen as a women's area.

I'd suggest that the difference between men and women as discussed here and in Peston's article, is about priorities. The priority of the men who 'caused' the credit crunch was to make money for themselves. Women, it is supposed, are less focused on this and more on ensuring that the people around them are happy. While I hate stereotypes like this- and I'm sure there are plenty of men out there who care more for their family and friends' well-being than for wealth, just as there are women who care more about wealth than well-being- I have to admit that there is some truth to it.

And I don't think it's a bad thing. Maybe it's just because I'm a woman, maybe it's got something to do with my faith, but I think public and business life would be none the worse if those in high positions put the good of their employees/ customers/ family before their own bonuses and wage increases rather more than seems to be the case at present. And if that means getting more women into high positions, I'm certainly not going to complain.

A Curious Girl: Male bias in movies - why?

Thinking on similar lines to my post the other day, a friend of mine wrote a post on her blog about the gender divide in film. A Curious Girl: Male bias in movies - why?

A friend and I spent a while last night trying to evaluate musicals using the same test. Quite a few passed (Wicked, The King and I, The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins to name the ones I can remember) but many others didn't. What really struck me, however, is that we couldn't think of a single musical written or composed by a woman. Not one.

That made me think. In literature, there are many examples of female writers before the 20th century, from seventeenth-century poets and playwrites to nineteenth century novellists and social commentators. But there are far fewer female artists, and I couldn't even think of one female composer. Probably this had something to do with patronage- institutions for art and music wouldn't have allowed women members, and therefore it would have been harder for women to become known and attract patronage. But you would have thought there would be one or two.

Maybe I just don't have a good enough knowledge. Maybe there are some out there. Anyone know of any female classical composers (pre 1920's)? Or can anyone think of a musical written by a woman?

Equality of the sexes? Not yet.

I've seen a few news articles and suchlike recently that have reminded me that even today women aren't treated equally. Recently I read a historical article on women's' movements that campaigned against giving women the vote. I didn't even realise that such movements existed, but they did and were quite vocal, arguing that women had no role in government- and this was being said by women. The idea that men alone were responsible for women's inferior position in society isn't quite true- one half of the population could never have been kept down for so long if at least some of them hadn't acquiesced, for whatever reason.

I know people who treat 'feminism' as if it was a dirty word, implying people who want more than is reasonably their due. The stereotypical men-hating feminist is often a figure of derision and mockery. People think that because women are (pretty much) equal to men by law now, everything's alright. But it isn't. As someone (I can't remember who) once said, so much of what men have by right women only have by law. It's not laws that need to be changed but people's attitudes.

For example, women are still earning less than men. This article says some interesting things about the different expectations and ambitions that women have at work. Some of the stories given in the comments show how far we still are from real equality. But equality doesn't mean the same as uniformity. I was interested by the idea that women look for other things in a job than purely the money, and I think there's some truth in it. Job satisfaction, having a good employer and being able to be flexible enough to fit in other activities and responsibilities are all things that I've looked at when applying for jobs. If a job has all those things but maybe pays less than a less pleasant job, is that necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps women (and men) who think like this are wiser than those who focus only on earning more and more.

Don't think for a moment that I'm trying to excuse inequality. I'm just suggesting that there's more to life than making money, and that perhaps earning less doesn't always make women unhappier. But that's a different point from women who are paid less than equivalent male colleagues- that is wrong.

One of the most common reasons given for women earning less, and for why there are fewer women at the top of their various fields is the biological factor. Women have babies, men don't. It's much more common for a mother to give up work, at least for a few years, to care for children than for a father to do so. I guess I have an unusual perspective on this, because my father took early retirement and stayed at home to look after me while my mother went back to work. So I wonder quite why it is usually the mother who gives up work. Is it because childcare is still viewed as women's work (And far more women than men are involved in professional childcare and teaching)? Or does it maybe have something to do with women often being in lower paid jobs to start with?

The problem, so we are told, is that women who take career breaks have less experience and so can't compete for top jobs against male colleagues. There is some logic in this but to be honest I don't think that excuses it completely. Is experience all that important? If all employers only took on people with masses of experience, how could anyone get a job for the first time? (Wait, that sounds familiar...) And it doesn't take into account what the woman may have been doing outside work. Skills gained outside the workplace might mean she is able to look at things in a way others can't, or see ways to deal with situations that others can't.

That's quite enough ranting for one post! I'd be the first to admit women's position has improved a lot over the last 150 years or so. My point is that there's still a way to go before women are equal (and that's just in the secular world. Don't get me started on women and the church...). But the issue can't just be addressed by changing laws. People's opinions and culture need to change- to get away from a situation where so often women in certain types of literature or film, especially adventure stories, are merely there as companions and accomplices to the men, rather than being protagonists in their own right. And to get to a place where a man doesn't come up to a female sales person in an outdoor equipment shop and think it's perfectly acceptable to request assistance from a male colleague because she's a woman, and wouldn't know about the type of equipment she wants- even when both man and woman had the same training!

P.S. Just seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8033480.stm kind of makes my point.

Darwin, women, the church...and an unintentional rant!

So it seems Darwin may actually have been right after all, the Catholic church says. Science and religion aren't necessarily at odds. Some influential theologians saw evidence for evolution long before the Origin of Species was written. Christian doesn't mean creationist*.

Well about time too.

I hope people actually listen to statements like this and get the message. Christians aren't weirdos who deny all modern science and insist on believing fairy tales in the face of logical evidence. Yes, some Christian beliefs may sound odd, (people being raised from the dead? A God who's simultaneously three and one? What's all that about?) but we're not hopelessly outdated people trying to maintain medieval beliefs and values in the face of all the odds. The church has much to say that's relevant to people here and now, in today's postmodern world.

The sooner the world realises this, and starts taking us seriously rather than laughing us out the door, the better. The sooner some sections of the church realise it the better too.

If only this was the only story about the church that's in the news at present. What the rest of the world must make of some Anglicans' views on women bishops I dread to think. If some C of E members think women shouldn't be in authority, or allowed to teach, how do they reconcile their consciences with female doctors, teachers (especially in Sunday schools!), judges or even a female Prime Minister?

We're looking at a world that's reeling from the shock of global economic recession. I think God wants to use this to speak to the world- to show what a mess we've got ourselves into with (let's be honest) no idea how to get ourselves out. How the human race has wasted its resources and made life hell for some people at the same time as others have had millions to waste. To call us back to his love that will restore the world. The church should be there, ready to listen to God, to do his work by helping people, and setting an example of what human life should be like. Are we up to it? Not as we are. But with God's help, we can be.

Ooh, unintentional rant. Sorry! I didn't mean to write that last paragraph when I started, it just sort of slipped out. Make of that what you will.
And before you start worrying, I don't actually read the Telegraph. I found the story here.


*In the sense of denying scientific evidence for evolution in favour of a too-literal reading of Genesis.