A Happy New Year

Well, my nightmare hasn’t actually happened. We’re still here, stuck in to 2018.

A new year! I’m not a great one for New Year’s resolutions, mainly because I’m so rotten at keeping them. However, I think this year I might have a try. My resolution is to “but no buts” – of course, the spelling is important! To butt a butt is entirely different, and something I have no intention of doing that either, even if I could.

I guess you’d recognise the sort of thing I’m talking about. Someone says, “I’m not a racist, BUT…” Or “I’ve nothing against her – I’m sure she’s a nice enough person – BUT…” And the bit that comes after the BUT always contradicts the bit before. It’s prejudice disguised as politeness. In fact it’s sheer dishonesty.  

An uncomfortable test is to reverse the sentences. Some B&B owners in the 1960s put signs in their windows reading, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”. They might have claimed they weren’t discriminating. However, put it the other way round and the truth is clear: “I don’t want any of them in my B&B; therefore, I AM a racist.” Or, “You know, she’s one of those immigrants who take all our jobs; so I DO have a lot against her.” We shouldn’t kid ourselves with the “I’ve nothing against” lie. But me no buts!

Shakespeare never said, “but me no buts”, as prime minister, Jim Hacker, wrongly thought. It came much later. However much earlier Jesus did say, “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, and let your ‘no’ be’no’.” In other words, don’t dress up what you say in disguise. Say what you mean. But that isn’t an excuse for being rude or hurting others. Because he also said, "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you.” And he said we’ll be judged by our careless words. That means, whatever we utter matters hugely. Ouch!

So in 2018 I’m going to try to follow the three gold tests my mother told us children to ask before we spoke. “Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?” Happy New Year, everyone.

Family-friendly government

If you choose to stay at home to bring up your children or care for your aged parents or an ailing spouse, things don't look too good for you, after yesterday's Queen's Speech. They were already looking grim for you, in fact, as a result of the government's child care plans.

Should you choose to do anything as old-fashioned and quaint as to keep your children at home until statutory school-age or even forego employment so that you are there when the kids come home from school or available when they are ill, it will affect your state pension - for the worse. How come? Hitherto, when you were a stay-at-home mum up until your children finished at school (or aged 20 if they were still in education), you were counted in on your husband's national insurance contributions (in effect his salary counted as both his and yours, which of course is what it was). That meant that the years you were busily employed caring for your children counted towards your state pension. This could be worth up to £66 per week, plus pension for years when you had been in employment up to a maximum of £110 per week. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/may/07/pensions-bill-flat-rate-changes-married-couples)

The new scheme will discriminate against those who stay at home to care for their children, as the state pension will be based solely on your national insurance contributions from employment. It's yet to be announced what the minimum number of years' contributions will entitle you to any state pension (between seven and ten?). If it was seven, you'd get £28.77 pension a week. Less than that, you'd get nothing. To me this sounds as though the Government, for all its fine words, sets no value on mums or dads staying at home for the sake of their children. Certainly the usual pattern of family life has changed since the 1940s, but the jury is still out on the benefits or otherwise of that change for children. Incidentally I heard this proposal first mooted, leaked, poisonously on the BBC as a measure to prevent immigrants cashing in on our welfare system - no contributions: no pension.

This morning I heard Laura Perrins, barrister and stay-at-home mum, talking on Woman's Hour about the Government's discrimination against people like her. She hit the headlines in March taking the Deputy Prime Minister to task over the double injury inflicted on those in her situation by the new child benefit and childcare policies. As a barrister married to another barrister, she took a big cut in income to stay at home. Since her husband earns over £50,000, they are now no longer entitled to child benefit (Fair enough, they thought; times are tough), even though couples who are both out at work earning up to something over £90,000 are entitled to child benefit. To add insult to injury, the Budget introduced a provision for up to 15 hours' free childcare - but only where both parents are employed.

To quote Laura in her exchange with the oleagenous Nick Clegg:

"Well, Mr Clegg, child benefit was a fair way of recognising everybody's legitimate choice either to work outside the home or to work inside the home. You've essentially abolished that for families like me and replaced it with this, which applies only to mums who want to go out to work.

"I've absolutely no problem with mums who want to do that – there are plenty of my neighbours who do that and I support them fully. But they also recognise that I do a difficult job at home, and by taking away our child benefit and not replacing it with anything you are clearly discriminating against us.

"And then, secondly, in relation to the 15 hours of free childcare or the free early-years education, which I knew you would say ... that doesn't just help stay-at-home mums, that is as you know a universal education provision that is for the children, not for the parents. That's like saying free primary education helps mums, or free secondary helps stay-at-home mums

"There is absolutely no provision within the tax system to help families like myself, and our family is no doubt a net contributor to the Exchequer.

"I just feel that this provision is to bump up the GDP numbers, because if I was looking after someone else's children that would count as a GDP number, which is all that I think the Treasury care about. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing." (Stay-at-home mother, Laura Perrins, talks to Nick Clegg)

I seem to remember Mr Cameron trumpeting his intention to lead "the most family-friendly government Britain has ever had". Well, it seems to promote the model of family of its leaders, where both parents go out to work and "delegate the care of their children to paid strangers" (Milli Hill, Letter to Nick Clegg), and to penalise the alternative. So much for the espousal of "choice" that we hear so much about. Choice - but it will cost you dearly. Of course it won't cost our PM or his deputy or his cabinet for whom state pensions and childcare costs are irrelevancies.

Women bishops - apology

Last night I thought it might have been a mistake to listen to the afternoon live stream of the Church of England General Synod's debate about the ordination of women bishops, since whenever I woke - which was quite often - my mind was mulling it all over. I was glad I'd listened to it, even the peculiar analogy of vegetarians (anti-women-bishops) invited/forced to eat a full turkey (pro-women-bishops) roast, because it was clear that despite the illogicalities it was still a debate about sincerely held convictions about women and authority. I found myself surprisingly upset. So I resolved to write a letter today to my women friends who are also priests and were most immediately injured by the marginal defeat, but it also extends to all who feel that they have been discriminated against by a church they love.

19 Churchward Close
Grove
Oxfordshire
21st November 2012

Dear Sisters

I am deeply and truly sorry that you were so grievously hurt yesterday.

I have to confess that not so long ago I would have been among 45 clergy voting against the women bishops' measure yesterday and I might well have used sermons to say why. About twelve years ago, when the possibility was beginning to be mooted, I remember being asked over lunch at Lee Abbey what I thought about women being bishops and answering that I was against it and wouldn't serve under one. I have repented since.

Four things convinced me that I was wrong. The first was the succession of women in training for ordination at Wycliffe Hall who came on attachment or to preach in our parish. I'm not making comparisons! We had good male ordinands, of course, but it struck me that to be a female ordinand you had to be outstanding. I can remember them all and they were all inspiring. It's not that they set out to change my mind, but merely that they themselves set me thinking and reassessing my previous view of what the Bible said.

Secondly, I had had no time for those who explained away the "plain meaning of Scripture". For me the Bible was, and remains, true and the ultimate authority. So I didn't approve of attempts to wriggle out of its difficult teachings. However I have come to see that the original context is crucial both to our understanding and the application of the Bible. (I have a feeling this is known as hermeneutics.) I didn't find any idea of gender hierarchy at creation in Genesis; it seemed to be introduced as a consequence of the fall. I found that Jesus came to reverse the effects of the Fall and bring in the Kingdom of God:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
    because he has anointed me
    to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
    and recovering of sight to the blind,
    to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour”. This accorded with the radical way that Jesus interacted with women, overturning the oppression to which they had been subjected - so that the first response of faith to his incarnation was by a woman, the Virgin Mary, (a contrast to Zechariah the priest); the first Gentile apostle/evangelist was the Samaritan woman; he commended Mary of Bethany for sitting as a disciple at a rabbi's feet; he entrusted the good news of his resurrection to Mary Magdalene; and one could go on. He utterly reversed the accepted subordinate role of women. (See Tom Wright's article: Women Bishops: It's about the Bible, not fake ideas of progress - http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=759.)

This seemed to me to set the context for interpreting the few difficult passages in the epistles. One had to conclude either that they were contradicting Jesus' teaching and example, or that they were addressing particular church situations - such as the morally confused Corinthians or the Ephesian church in the shadow of the great Artemis. I found that some "plain meanings" (such as authentein - have authority over) were not plain at all. I discovered that understanding the current social conditions threw quite a different light on passages I'd regarded with 20th-century eyes. I noticed examples of women in church leadership in Paul's epistles (like Romans 16), and wondered whether my astigmatism had been merely physical.

The sort of process I went through was well described in a sermon preached in the USA by a pastor named Rich Nathan in a series, "Myths that Christians believe", entitled Women can't serve as senior pastors, can they? (He's not an Anglican, but he is what we'd call an evangelical.)

Then thirdly last summer I heard two brilliant talks given by Charlotte Gambill, Senior Associate Pastor at the Life Church, Bradford, and by Danielle Strickland, a Major in the Salvation Army. And it struck me how gifted they clearly were as teachers; in fact I found them the most challenging and illuminating speakers of the week. How perverse, I thought, to deny their gifts to the whole church! It's surely not what God intended for the gifts he provides to build up his Church. These were not, of course, the first women I'd come across in the Church who clearly had gifts of teaching and leading. I've mentioned the ordinands. There was one member of our church who had clear gifts of preaching, teaching and applying the Bible. She wasn't ordained but was given authorisation by our enlightened bishop to preach. Sadly when I left the church was denied the benefit of her gifting. 

I found in the summer a book by Danielle Strickland, The Liberating Truth - How Jesus empowers women - which Jane subsequently gave me for my birthday. She argues that we exploit or discriminate against women is a justice issue, and since the Church is in the business of standing for justice it should set its own house in order by following Jesus' radical approach.

Fourthly, I have often reflected on the empirical fact that the best of the five secondary headteachers under whom I taught were both women. I had no problem working for them. They exercised their authority well. I respected them - but, if I had been consistent in believing that women should not have authority over men, I shouldn't have. I would however been blind and blindly prejudiced not to acknowledge they were good leaders of men and women. They had the qualities and giftings that made them the best people for the job. That was what mattered. Why should not everyone in the Church too have their gifts and calling recognised and used irrespective of gender?

Obviously those aren't the only reasons which have led to my change of mind. There are the many friends, real and virtual, whom I've made who are clearly gifted priests, teachers and leaders of churches. There's your weariness of feeling unrecognised and undervalued, which is our collective sin against you. There is the burning conviction that a church which institutionalises discrimination has no moral ground to speak against injustice elsewhere. There is St Paul's ringing charter, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I was once proud of the label "conservative evangelical" as that's what I considered myself, as my father was before me. However having heard it yesterday cheerfully used as a justification of inequality I don't want it. I still believe in the unique truth and authority of Scripture, but I don't believe yesterday's vote was faithful to the living Word to whom the written word bears witness. 

One of you wrote, after the debate and vote: "I am gutted, and off to put my son to bed..... and then contemplate how I stay in a Church which feels that no amount of provision can protect people from the 'taint' that my ministry and authority means...". I want to say that most of us do not see the taint, and that we welcome your Christ-like ministry. Please enrich the church by your continued presence.

I hope, wounded though you have been, you find it in your hearts to say, "Father, forgive them...." And I, for my part, pledge myself to pray and work for the Kingdom to come for you - soon.

Your brother in Christ

Michael

PS For those Anglicans who are grieving and depressed by yesterday's vote, here's a quote from the admirable Marijke Hoek of the Evangelical Alliance: "Christian organisations are full of subtle dynamics that undermine and derogate women's development, but if you dive under the radar and follow God's stream, it circumvents the whole lot of them. Ultimately character is what honours God. 'The Way of Jesus … is a way of bringing the kingdom of Love to the reality of this present moment, through the Way we travel, through the Way we are, and through the Way we are with God'. (Peterson)". You're not the only ones!

Do not resuscitate

You might have thought that the implication of something I wrote yesterday about the Paralympic legacy was a bit alarmist. I said, "Nevertheless it is to be hoped that the high-achievers will have dispelled the myth once and for all that disability renders you less of a person, with less dignity and worthy of less respect. This recognition has implications for both ends of life."

Today the news outlets contain a story which suggests that this is already a real matter of life and death. The case is reported of a 51-year old man with Down's Syndrome who had a DNR ("Do Not Resuscitate") notice attached to his hospital notes without his, his family's or his carers' knowledge or consent. It was only discovered when he returned in good health to his care home. The reasons given for not resuscitating the man were: "Down's syndrome, unable to swallow (Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy] fed), bed bound, learning difficulties". For learning difficulties and Down's Syndrome to be given as reasons not to save someone's life is chilling.

Obviously we don't know Margate hospital's side of the story, as they won't comment on a sub judice case. But on the face of it their treatment of AWA, the patient, and his next of kin was shameful. Sadly it's not an isolated case. The comment of Mark Goldring, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, is worth quoting: "We are very disappointed to hear about this case, but unfortunately, we believe that DNR orders are frequently being placed on patients with a learning disability without the knowledge or agreement of families. This is against the law. 

"All too often, decisions made by health professionals are based on discriminatory and incorrect assumptions about a patient's quality of life.

"People with a learning disability enjoy meaningful lives like anyone else. Yet... prejudice, ignorance and indifference, as well as failure to abide by disability discrimination laws, still feature in the treatment of many patients with a learning disability.

"Health professionals need to understand their legal duties when treating people with a learning disability, and be held to account when they fail to do so." 

Source: BBC Health News

Tony Nicklinson RIP

We were on holiday with our family this past week in the Brecon Beacons. We weren't far from where we used to enjoy many an Easter break with them as children, in the Black Mountains. It's a seriously beautiful part of the world. In the old days, we had great enjoyment scrambling up the hills in the area, walking Offa's Dyke Path, exploring the streams and woods, making fires and barbecuing marshmallows - and, once, disastrously, a pair of trousers.... It was in the Beacons that I had my second big seizure - many years before, unconnectedly, I was diagnosed with ALS/MND. Now my holiday activity is largely of a passive nature from my wheelchair. No more hill-walking or exploring the woods and moorlands. No more extricating feet from boot-sucking bogs, or hastily throwing on a kagoule as the rain catches up with you, or manoeuvring the map around to align various landmarks and work out just where you are. No more rising the crest of a slope and discovering a breathtaking view bathed in sunlight....

And yet it's been a lovely week. Not really because of the views, though the view up to the Pen y Fan ridge from our barn conversion was great, sometimes shrouded in cloud, sometimes made bright by the sun, sometimes with sharp shadows of the morning or evening. Not really because of the change, though it was nice to see Jane not having to think about meals, since the younger generation took turns in preparing a main meal as they did in keeping an eye on me. What I most enjoyed was being in that environment of mutual respect and affection, which included me. That's what made it a love-ly week.

On Wednesday afternoon there was a gentleness when two of them broke the news to me, "Dad, Tony Nicklinson has died." I was lowered into my seat, as they told me more: "Of natural causes. Pneumonia. He hadn't been eating." I was sad, in one way, to hear it. He was a man whom I'd met and talked with of important matters, and with whom I shared a similar predicament, a fellow-dribbler and with a remarkable wife called Jane. I had admired his stubbornness. But I also reflected that God had granted him his two great wishes: first, to have his day in court; and second, to have his suffering cut short by death. Tony, of course, would not have looked at it like that. The idea of "God" was one of the things that made him angry. He would probably have preferred me to say that he achieved his day in court and that he precipitated his own end. I'm not greatly fussed by the language you use, but I am truly grateful that his suffering and deep unhappiness is over, that the fever of his life is over and his work is done.

Meeting the late Tony Nicklinson

The Times, which campaigns vigorously for euthanasia, covered Tony's death extensively on Thursday. Its use of loaded terminology in news coverage left much to be desired: "Six days after the High Court condemned him to live...". Later the article quoted his wife, Jane: "To all those religious groups, all the pro-life advocates who advised the family to cherish the gift of life, she had the same response: come down and look Tony in the eye, while you say it. Watch him dribble, hear him howl, and ask yourself again whether this is a life worth preserving?" At least one opponent of euthanasia was given that privilege, thanks to the BBC: BBC Inside Out Tony Nicklinson & me. I watched him and heard him. I saw his wistful misery as we gazed into each other's eyes. And actually, Jane, despite his frustration and his feeling of indignity (though I didn't see an undignified person), despite his incapacity and his anger, I think his was, or could have been, a life worth preserving. I saw a man of extraordinary determination. They say courage is not never being afraid, but carrying on even through the fear. So determination is not never feeling weary, but carrying on even through the exhaustion. Tony had bags of fighting spirit. That's what, I suspect, kept him going. Fighting for the idea that we should all have the right to choose how and when we die - because I think for him it was something more than that he should be in charge of his own dying, although he did feel that he was the object of unfair discrimination, being physically unable to commit suicide. Part of his argument was based on the inequality his condition subjected him to. Personally I think making it legal to take anyone's life is a bad principle. Tony's was a hard case, without doubt, but hard exceptional cases make bad law.

The tragic thing in my view is that Tony's fighting spirit was so directed to a negative and self-destructive end, his own death. We're about to see paralympic athletes who by sheer determination have overcome "impossible" handicaps to achieve heights beyond most of the fittest of us. In no way am I suggesting that Tony could have escaped his locked-in prison to achieve such physical feats, but he proved that he could win what The Times termed "victory" in other ways than physical - as indeed others with locked-in syndrome are doing like Gary Parkinson (Radio 5 Live report) or Bram Harrison (Independent report: Britain's bravest DJ). Their aims and interests are positive, and are not just about themselves getting better. I've no doubt they get fed up and weary with life, from time to time. It goes against the grain, as I know, to be constantly depending on others to survive.

And yet, here's the magic, which is so priceless to receive, to be loved by those around us actually makes life worth living. I love the BBC's Mark Clemmit's account of Deborah Parkinson, wife of footballer, Gary: "His wife is the most extraordinary woman I have ever, ever met. There was never a down moment. She keeps going and her dedication to her man is beyond belief. It says 'better and for worse' when you sign up and that's her attitude.

"They nearly lost him several times and Deborah was given options to turn off the life-support machine, but she wouldn't entertain the notion. She will keep supporting him."

In the end, it doesn't matter what we can achieve; it matters what we can receive. That's what makes life worth preserving. It is what makes life worth living. That's why I've had a good holiday. That's why, as my abilities decline still further, I hope I'll still be grateful for every day of life. I'm immensely sad that that wasn't enough for Tony, for without doubt he was cherished and loved amazingly by Jane, and Lauren and Beth, beyond what's "reasonable" to expect. Tragically for him the darkness blotted out the light. Ultimately humanity makes a choice and takes its chance. However I dare to pray that darkness has not had the last word. RIP.