Britain tries to limit pro-choice policy

Nobody would wish an abortion upon their closest enemy. Not only for the psychological trauma and misery inflicted upon the mother and father, but also for the death of a foetus that could grow up to live a full adult life. But we also know what damage an unwanted pregnancy can wreak, and, again, not just on the parents but on the baby too. A lapse of judgement, a faulty contraceptive, a rape - and a whole life time of repercussions, some good, perhaps, but many not.

Indeed the decision to have, or not to have, an abortion seems to me to be of such magnitude that the process by which an answer is found must be critical to making the right one. And that process is, obviously, almost overwhelmingly challenging, upsetting and difficult. Who to get advice from? Who to make the decision? How long to decide it? Etc. Tory politician Nadine Dorries wants abortion providers, such as the universally lauded Marie Stopes, to be barred from giving advice in favour of 'independent' counsellors - including religious groups and for the decision making period to be lengthened. Her argument that MS et al have a vested interest in persuading women to have abortions is so implausible as to be almost offensive but perhaps her point is a good one. Isn't more time and greater independence desirable?

But is there any such thing as 'independent' advice? If we believe this decision is important then surely the first consequence we can affirm is that women must make this decision for themselves and not have legislators do it for them? Who could believe an MP has a better chance of making the right decision than the mother concerned? It would follow, surely, that women must be allowed to choose their advisers too and even the period of time that decision should take. For some it will be obvious, for others days if not weeks of agonising may be necessary. We can accept this and still allow a degree of protection - limiting advisers to those with a minimum level of qualification and setting some upper limit on decision making period. Although Dorries claims otherwise, this appears to be part of a gradual chipping away at the right to choose at every stage of having, and not having, an abortion, which the Conservative government have, until now, appeared willing to promote.

A final thought: even those who believe no abortion is acceptable do not need to affirm that it ought to be illegal. The Christian must love, forgive, help, aid and care but not condemn, ostracise or punish; loving your neighbour means allowing them to make decisions for themselves too.

Evangelical Teen Camps & 'Faith Healing'

I've been watching the half-hour long 'best of' clips compiled by Soul Survivor, an evangelical Christian festival aimed at teens. One of the most striking features, between clips of rock music that's pretty far off my taste, was an extended sermon by an attractive, young woman in friendly clothes with a nice, confident voice. I'm sure it wasn't sold as a 'sermon', come to thing of it. It was a loose collection of anecdotes about experiences she had had or heard about when people had been remarkably healed by prayer.

To take two examples:

1. John Wimber had visited an African village where a young boy had been cursed by the local 'witch doctor' after his parents had converted to Christianity. He was mute and shrunken but after Wimber's group prayed for a bit and the boy began to grow and speak. Soon he was fully developed for his age.

2. The woman reported an exchange with her nail technician, one of whom's arms was 1.5cm shorter than the other. After prayer again her arm miraculously grew to full length.

I'm not interested here to assess whether these events took place, although it is hard not to be a little sceptical, but rather what it would mean if they were true, which is what this woman evidently believed and what she was encouraging the enormous crowd of teens listening avidly to her talk.

First, what would it mean for the boy's parents in example 1? Had they not prayed for their son? Had they not prayed hard enough? Were their prayers not good enough? Were they not good enough Christians?

Secondly, what would it mean for other sufferers who don't get better? Her prayers were able to extend the arms of a person she had only just met but why do some good Christians, from loving churches, die from cancer? Were they not really that good? Did they pray wrongly?

Thirdly, did she change God's mind? Had God intended that the little boy should remain cursed unless a prayer group from the USA turned up to help? What about other little boys who are cursed but weren't on Wimber's itinerary, does God give up on them?

In other words does God only act when someone, typically an evangelical Christian, prays to him and why does he act sometimes but, apparantly, not others? My biggest fear about this kind of understanding of 'the power of prayer' is what it means for the practice overall. Prayer, it seems, is like a shopping list of physical ailments for God to fix. If you do it right, he fixes them. For some reason, unknown, He sometimes doesn't. In this sense He's like a capricious car mechanic and we're trying to buy an MOT. Anyone with some knowledge of the history of prayer knows that this is selling prayer far too short and that it simply doesn't reflect our experience of how God works. I don't intend to give a definition but prayer involves, at the very least, a listening exercise not a speaking one. It is about opening ourselves up as a channel or conduit, the traffic is two way. We are in dialogue not monologue.

Evangelical Teen Camps

Writing in the Guardian, Tom Prosser criticises Christian teen festivals, calling them 'wicked', 'emotionally manipulative' and exploitative. His damning claim is based on two points: first, that the 'tactics' of those who run the camp are manipulative, tricking children into committing to Christianity; and secondly, that the theology of their organisers is suspect. These points do not seem sufficient, to me, to merit his condemnation.

Steve Clifford, general director of the Evangelical Alliance and adviser to Soul Survivor, wrote back, but missed all the key points, although he did do a good job of defending the playing of rock music and so on at Christian festivals from the sneering of Prosser.

Each of the points Prosser made are important, to the first I think he is right that the use of music, dance and spectacle is intended to create an ethereal atmosphere, charged with religious significance and likely to stimulate a reaction that can be quickly identified as the 'Holy Spirit' by the organisers. A substantial part of the appeal of these events is the sense of transformation that be accessed so easily with the right conditions. Prosser goes to far, however, when he characterises this as a ploy to get teenagers to sign on the dotted line like the practices of door-to-door hucksters. The commitment is not odious, without financial demands, and which people keep only as long as they wish to. The signing of a 'contract' to "to include Jesus in their thoughts, words, and actions" is rather more dubious, but not, I think, a widespread practice and obviously more of an initiation ceremony than an out and out legal commitment.

To the second point, I agree again that the theology can be extraordinarily conservative in youth churches but if Prosser really believes, as he claims to, that "young people have a right to choose their religious beliefs", and he ought, then this kind of theology must be available to them. He claims: "Youngsters are threatened with divine judgment, and they are initiated into the world of charismatic Christian practices. At Soul Survivor, the largest Christian youth festival in the UK, teens have been told that witch doctors can maim children by cursing them. They have also been informed that God judges us on death for our deeds and thoughts, and they have been encouraged to practise physical healings."

I suspect not all these claims are true, and if they are, they are not widespread. Taken as a whole, they do not look deeply pernicious, indeed the idea of 'divine judgement' is surely to be expected at a religious festival? The reality is that evangelical teen festivals at their worst are ghastly rock concerts, but as long as the children who attend have fun the core message is overwhelmingly positive.

Picking and Choosing - Division and Unity

Where I live there are lots of churches, for every denomination, every neighbourhood, every style, every brand, every outlook, every set of opinions and every set of beliefs that I am familiar with. Between each of them there runs a line, sometimes deeper, sometimes shallower, separating even churches within a denomination and beneath the same authority.

Here's one church: liberal, cerebral, reflective, catholic in tradition. Here's another: energetic, vibrant, evangelising, socially conservative.

And who goes? To the first: middle class families, older people, in their fifties and above, retired priests, a few ordinands. To the second: students, young people, young families.

My friend T, an atheist, loves the diversity. You can choose to participate in the religious outlook you believe in, to support the values you believe are true. Anything else is dictatorial, conservative and moralising, removing the free choice of the individual.

Here's what Screwtape thinks:

<<My dear Wormwood,

.... You mentioned casually in your last letter that the patient has continued to attend one church, and one only, since he was converted, and that he is not wholly pleased with it. May I ask what you are about? Why have I no report on the causes of his fidelity to the parish church? Do you realise that unless it is due to indifference it is a very bad thing? Surely you know that if a man can’t be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighbourhood looking for the church that ‘suits’ him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches.... the search for a ‘suitable’ church makes the man a critic where the Enemy wants him to be a pupil....>>

If we choose the religious experience we like the best, as we choose our favourite brand of peanut butter from the shelf, wouldn't we be creating a market where:

<<religious institutions become marketing agencies and the religious traditions become consumer commodities>>

as, in fact, the economist Peter L. Berger describes contemporary society? The big, popular churches can hoover up worshippers from the small, local ones.

Could I remove myself from the market by choosing not the commodity which suits me the best but rather the one I am already living closest to? My local church is neither conservative evangelical nor liberal catholic. I would have a short walk on Sunday mornings. I don't imagine it teaches anything I would disagree with, or at least no more than any other place of worship. And, given that members of one outlook on Christianity don't tend to live together, it's probably a safe assumption that there would be a good mix of views and beliefs, and not a bad one of affluence and class.

But, says T, does this choice really exist? What if you lived next to a church you believed was fundamentally wrong? Now that we do pick and choose is it worth being a martyr to your local community when most of it heads off to the church they like the best on a Sunday morning? What about those churches where no one lives locally, such as in the centre of town, should they just fold?

We finished lunch and I told him I'd think about it.