At Christmas time

We think about the birth of Jesus Christ and the impact his life had and continues to have today.

Whether you believe he was mortal or immortal it is undeniable that his teachings and leadership on peace, love, compassion and his fight for those who came last in society are things that we admire and so have celebrated ever since. 

We now see his message as a shining light in the darkness but at the time he was persecuted.

Maybe this Christmas we should think not just about celebrating Jesus Christ but celebrating his message where we see it around us today.

Let’s not just look back because today we also have people who have spoken to our hearts and gathered a great following, who are willing to put their neck on the line and fight for peace not war, who fight for equality and speak out for the poorest and most in need and who fight against the persecution of many as they are labelled scroungers on the state.

Today people like this are still persecuted themselves and called things like ‘unrealistic and not economically viable’, ‘a threat to national security’, ‘terrorist sympathizers’. But they carry on fighting for a better life for all.

Maybe in today’s world saving us from our sins means literally saving us from our own destructive behaviour such as destroying our environment so it in turn destroys us or destroying each other with bombs and guns.

Maybe this year we need to look ahead and put a little of our faith in people like David Cameron, Natalie Bennett, and Jeremy Corbyn along with so many others who are listening to us and standing up for the things that we value.

Have a Blessed and Joyous Christmas

Living with Difference: Community, Diversity and the Common Good

On Monday 7th December 2015, a two-year interfaith commission published a report that has already caused a little bit of controversy and will continue to do so.

The Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life 150-page report actually makes for fascinating reading, the main hits which have and will be picked up by the media include the following:

• Britain is no longer a Christian country

• Faith schools are socially divisive and selection on the basis of faith should be cut back

• Anglican bishops in the House of Lords should be cut back and replaced with those of other faiths and other denominations. The report states; 'The pluralist character of modern society should be reflected in national forums such as the House of Lords, so that they include a wider range of worldviews and religious traditions, and of Christian denominations other than the Church of England, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords'.

• The Coronation service should include those of other faiths

• Religious radicals should be allowed to speak in University courts

• Thought for the Day on the BBC should include non-religious messages

• School assemblies should be replaced by ‘time for reflection’

• There should be a national ‘consultation’ to draw up a kind of 21st Century Magna Carta to determine what British values are

• Where a religious organisation is best placed to deliver a social good, it should not be disadvantaged when applying for funding to do so, so long as its services are not aimed at seeking converts

The Church of England are not happy; Nicky Morgan the Education Secretary is not happy; The National Secular Society (NSS) are not happy and lots of people will be unhappy – for different reasons.

Whilst there are actually parts of the report that are helpful and suggestions that make sense.

An inter-faith group comes up with a report that recommends more inter-faith control, what a surprise!

It is a Disneyesque view of human society and religion which tells us that we are all basically the same, we all get along and it’s only the few odd bods and ‘bad guys’ who prevent us living in total harmony.

The inter faith model only works in the minds of those who essentially regard all religions as the same, all human beings as basically good and who think that if only they can get to implement their particular version of utopia then it will happen.

It is true that in one sense Britain is no longer a Christian country. 

The fact that the majority of people do not attend church (did they ever?), the increase in other religions (particularly Islam – which seems a major focus of the report) and the ever-increasing demands of secular humanism are indicators that much of Christian Britain has disappeared.

However, there is another sense in which Britain very much remains a Christian country.

That is our foundation on which we are built, it is our historical heritage and maybe, before we give up on that, we need to know what we are selling our heritage for.

The secularist nirvana and the interfaith paradise are as yet untested pipe dreams, fed to us by those already in positions of power and establishment.

For those of us who believe that Christianity is the source and therefore the best guarantee of our Western liberal democracy, it is profoundly dangerous to remove the foundations and walls, without knowing what we are going to replace them with.

The report in effect suggests replacing the Christian foundations of our society with a vague inter faith potage that is dominated by the values and principles of secular humanism.

For example, the report states that people are 'free to express their beliefs and practise a religion, providing they do not constrict the rights and freedoms of others'.

This sounds good until you ask the questions:

• Who determines the rights and freedoms of others?

• What about someone’s freedom to be racist?

• What about someone’s freedom to marry whoever they want?

• What about someone’s freedom to engage in sexual perversity?

The danger is that we end up creating a secular state where the State acts as God, and where the powerful, rich elites determine the ‘rights and freedoms' of others according to their own fashions and fancies.

Religion that is reduced to the level of a knitting group or a golf club may be harmless, but it is also fundamentally useless.

Overall, Christians especially need to be very careful before going along with this report.

Some of us may be offered a seat at the table, but that’s no use if we don’t get a say in the menu!

For example, in the section on religious worship in schools the report states: 'In this connection we applaud the joint initiative in Scotland between the Humanist Society Scotland and the Church of Scotland to work together for an inclusive ‘time for reflection’.'

Again it sounds nice, but at best it is waffle and at worst it is Orwellian distortion of the English language.

An ‘inclusive’ time for reflection is nothing of the sort, it only includes those who buy into the humanist agenda (including the humanists in the church) and excludes anyone who dares to disagree with that agenda.

Britain’s liberal democracy and its values of freedom, equality and tolerance are based upon Christianity.

This report is indicative of a well-meaning inter-faith movement that is in danger of becoming a Trojan Horse for the new ‘Human Rights’ religion of the metro-elites.

It is the poor, the marginalised and the ordinary people of this country who will suffer most if we allow our country to be taken over and destroyed by this untried, untested new faith.

Let’s stick with Jesus and his Word.

Syria air strikes

After Ten and a half hours parliamentary debate on Wednesday 2^nd December 2015, which finish with Parliament voting overwhelmingly by 397 votes to 223 - a majority of 174 for the United Kingdom to take military action specifically airstrikes against Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh in Syria.

That terrorist organisation poses a direct threat to the UK and an unprecedented threat to international peace and security.

Sanctioned by the United Nations, every nation is urged to take all necessary measures to prevent terrorist acts by Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria.

This comes in the wake of the Paris massacre and is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria.

That strategy includes talks on a ceasefire and a political settlement.

The Government is also committed to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees and planning for post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction.  

Jeremy Corbyn gave Labour MPs a free vote after clear division in the Shadow Cabinet, Corbyn opposed military action and Hilary Benn voted in favour.

One of Mr Corbyn’s allies warned that we would be ‘killing babies’ if we were to take military action.

He is right though - War kills babies, women, men, children and all living things.

Despite targeted bombing, innocent people die.

At least nineteen were killed by the US bombing of the Medicins Sans Frontieres’ hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan recently.

But even so, this is very different from starting out with the 'intention' of killing babies.

Herod was determined to protect his kingdom and power.

The newborn, Christ-Child threatened all Herod had and after being tricked by the Magi, Herod killed all the male children under two in and around Bethlehem.

Jesus and his family escaped, becoming refugees in Egypt, until an angel told them that those who tried to kill the child were dead, so Mary and Joseph returned to their home in Nazareth.

Similarly, and yet not so similarly to Herod, Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh kills not only babies but everyone, especially Christians.

The bombings and beheadings are indiscriminate, random and deadly. 

They are fanatical, beyond reason and warfare against them is a last resort.

All other means must be exhausted and it must be proportionate.

That means we only use the force necessary to wipe out the threat and this now has the legitimate authority of our own Parliament, but also of the United Nations.

The death of civilians is only justified if they are the unavoidable victims in attacking a military target, the goal is always and only peace.

Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh must be defeated if there is to be justice and peace in the world - not only for the inhabitants of Syria, Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

All of us are now on the frontline - Eating, drinking, concert going and watching sports events should be without threat, in freedom and security.

People died to maintain that freedom and people will die again, as this war on terrorism affects the world.

All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing and if we wish peace, we must be prepared for war.

Spending Review and Autumn Statement 2015

The challenge every Chancellor faces is finding the right balance between wise management of the economy and meeting the expectations of the voters.

In 2010, George Osborne took charge of the economy with an unsustainable national debt and budget deficit.

He promised to eliminate the latter by 2015 but failed because the tax rates and cuts in public spending to do this were harsher than the voters would accept.

After May’s election, he repeated his promise to eliminate the deficit, now by 2019 and this once again would require major cuts in public spending, including £12 billion from the welfare budget.

Inevitably, the Opposition attacked his plan to cut the tax credits that are crucial for the poorest, even if they are in work.

On Wednesday 25^th November 2015, he prudently cancelled that plan until tax credits are phased out with the nationwide implementation of the Universal Benefit, expected to be by 2020.

In his Autumn Statement he also responded to voter expectations by allocating an additional £10 billion per year to the NHS; scrapping any further cuts to police budgets, as well as protecting the defence, overseas aid and education budgets.

All this was possible because other Whitehall departments took heavy hits to their budgets.

More important, was the apparently ‘surprise discovery’ that increased tax revenues and lower than expected interest payments on Government borrowing gave him £27 billion more to disperse than expected, in his March budget.

All this thrilled his backbenchers and won Osborne a good press but it did not impress the Shadow Chancellor who claimed credit for the U turn on tax credit cuts and complained that 14,000 of those already receiving the Universal Credit would still suffer the full cut.

He accused Osborne of ‘incompetence and poor judgement’, but blunted his attack by quoting Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ and by giving the Chancellor his own signed copy, to the embarrassment of Labour MPs.

Nevertheless, there are serious questions Osborne must face.

How real is the £27 billion pot the Office for Budget Responsibility has fortuitously found?

If tax receipts don’t increase and interest payments do not remain as modest as they expect, the 2019 target could be missed like the 2015 target.

Underlying the Chancellor’s plans is an assumption that the British economy will continue to grow robustly, but productivity is still poor and our major Eurozone markets remain weak.

Household debt is still too high and interest rates may need to be raised to cool consumer demand and If, as Osborne has repeatedly claimed, ‘we are all in this together’, delaying the end of tax credits is welcome from a social justice perspective, but questionable if he is gambling with the nation’s finances in his bid to be Cameron’s heir apparent.

Another question is how the costs of providing for the 20,000 refugees the Government is committed to accepting, will be met; there was no mention of this in the Statement.

The tension between what we citizens expect and wise economic policies, is one Christians should understand.

We will experience personally it as the tension between self-interest and loving our needier neighbours, James 2:14-16 comes to mind.

Caring for an ageing population.

Britain has an ageing population and the proportion of people aged 65 or over increased from 15% in 1985 to 17% in 2010.

It is projected to reach 23% of the total population by 2035 and this represents political as well as human challenges

More than half of the UK welfare budget is spent funding pensions, healthcare and other benefits for our senior citizens and this expenditure is expected to rise by £2.8 billion a year over the next five years, reaching a total of £128 billion by the end of this Parliament.

Typically, older people need health and social care more than younger people, and it has been estimated that they consume 70% of that budget.

At a time when the Government is trying to eliminate the budget deficit it inherited, whilst simultaneously protecting the defence, NHS and overseas aid budgets, these statistics are seriously challenging.

This is exacerbated by the fall in tax revenues when older people retire from employment.

On Wednesday 25th November 2015, the Chancellor George Osborne will announce the Autumn Spending Review.

How can he handle these challenges, bearing in mind that the treatment of older people is politically sensitive and a higher proportion of them vote than younger people?

One option is to means test selected benefits and care services so that the better off pay more for them.

Another would be to raise the age at which the state pension is paid; whilst encouraging younger people to save more for their retirement.

One reason for an ageing population is that people live longer as the result of better preventative health care.

Raising the pension age could encourage more to delay retirement, helping to reduce public expenditure and defer cuts in tax revenues.

It would be wrong, though, to see this issue solely in financial terms.

There are other human and social aspects that should not be overlooked.

A recent report entitled 'Agenda for Later Life 2015' from Age UK reveals that loneliness is experienced by an increasing number of older people.

Marriage breakdown is more widespread and families are more geographically scattered whilst younger couples may both need to work, leaving less time to care for dependent relatives.

In some instances, these trends weaken the possibilities of family support for their elderly members.

Winter weather is another complicating factor when pensioners try to save by not heating their homes to keep the bills down, the combination of loneliness and self-neglect can lead to depression as well as mental illness.

Challenging us all to be good neighbours, Professor Willett, NHS England’s Director of Acute Care, says

‘The fact that a third of elderly people never or only occasionally socialise with family or friends is not only a sad indictment of the society we live in, but the results of that social isolation present one of the biggest challenges to the NHS over the winter.’

He suggests we can all look out for our elderly neighbours, offering to help with shopping or by taking them to the shops.

We can collect medications for them from the pharmacy and help them with home tasks they cannot handle.

From Jesus’ perspective, loving our neighbours comes second only to loving God.

It is also a way of sharing our faith and being different from the self- orientated individualism that dominates contemporary British culture.

Britain and Overseas Development Aid

In the last year, Britain became one of the few countries that met the United Nation’s target of ring fencing 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) for overseas development aid to help poor nations

In cash terms that was £11.8 billion or 7p in every £10 of taxpayers’ money and the sum does not include charitable giving by individuals and private organisations.

They contribute between 15% to 20% and the Government provides the other 80% to 85%.

Private giving is essentially short term humanitarian responses to specific crisis situations and is additional to the 0.7%..

Overseas Aid is a politically divisive issue, but how does Britain spend its overseas aid budget?

The Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru parties back the 0.7% target.

The Green Party want it increased to at least 1%, whilst UKIP advocated a reduction to 0.2% and they argued that the Government’s austerity programme had left a significant number of Britons with fuel poverty and dependent on food banks, so two thirds of the aid budget should be reallocated domestically.

They also claimed that overseas aid is often wasted, is sometimes corruptly misappropriated, and creates dependency in recipient countries.

Worldwide, approximately 1.4 billion people still live in extreme poverty without sufficient income to meet the basic requirements for life over an extended period.

That includes food, safe drinking water, sanitation, health services, elementary education, and shelter. 

Poverty is caused by war, the concentration of wealth in the hands of corrupt politicians and officials, tribal conflicts, colonial exploitation by rich western countries, climate change, and droughts or flooding that destroy crops.

The Bible gives us two basic principles for Christians supporting overseas aid.

First, we are all created in God’s image; however poorly we reflect that or even deny it. 

If all people are made in God’s image, it is inhumane to be indifferent to a significant number of our fellow humans living in wretched conditions whilst we can afford to indulge in expensive recreational pursuits.

The second biblical value is the importance of relationships. 

Jesus identified a priority to love one’s neighbour and meant this not in a literal geographical sense, but his parable of the Good Samaritan applied it to anyone in need, regardless of national or cultural identity.

These two principles are expressed in the Old Testament teaching about caring for widows, orphans and foreigners in Israel because they had no economic stake in Israelite society and were vulnerable as a result.

Proverbs 25:21 stretches the scope of this further. ‘If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat, if he is thirsty give him water to drink.’

The prophet Isaiah made the same point when questioning what kind of fasting God expects of us. ‘Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter?’ 

He continued later, ‘if you spend yourself on behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness’.

Jesus underlined this principle when he said whatever we did for the least of his brothers, we did him and conversely, anyone who didn't, did not do it for him.

St Paul’s collection in Corinth for the victims of famine in Israel illustrates the universal application of this principle.

Three surprises at the Conservative Party Conference 2015

The primary purpose of party conferences, even more important than catching newspaper headlines, is to motivate rank and file members to continue working for the party in their constituencies.

That usually means celebrating any successes and restating party values and propaganda.

For non-members and neutrals, conferences can be less than scintillating, and it is the exceptions that stick in the memory

There were three exceptions at this year's Conservative Party conference.

The first concerned a significant transfer of powers from Whitehall to Town Halls. George Osborne announced in his speech that he will abolish the Uniform Business Tax local authorities collect and pay to the Treasury.

Instead Councils will levy their own business tax and keep the yield instead of receiving an annual grant from central government.

Greg Clark, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, followed up this announcement in his speech and was joined on stage by Councillors from a number of authorities who are planning to have directly elected Mayors and engage positively with these powers.

Their income will all be raised locally from this business tax and the Council tax. If this arouses more interest in local government and triggers a revival of more participatory democracy that would be welcome.

The second surprise came from Justice Secretary Michael Gove who only made a short speech but it was preceded by contributions from outsiders.

The first was an ex-convict who described how he quit crime, studied for a degree in prison and got a job working with a charity to keep youngsters out of crime.

He was followed by James Timpson, Chief Executive of Timpsons, the shoe repairers, 10% of whose employees are ex-convicts.

Timpsons runs a training course in Liverpool prison preparing suitable candidates for jobs in their shops and some are now managers, their example has now been copied by two other shop chains.

Gove concluded crime must be punished, but re-offending rates are too high and these initiatives are good for the individuals involved and for the taxpayer as it costs more than £60,000 a year to keep someone in prison.

David Cameron delivered the third surprise.

Much of his speech was predictable – national security and defence, Europe, the economy and home ownership.

Towards the end of the speech he turned to the social reforms he wanted to achieve before he quits in 2020.

He talked about one young black girl who had to change her name to Elizabeth before she got any calls for job interviews.

‘That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally’.

He went on to reject ‘passive toleration’ and plans to prosecute people who organise forced marriages, arrest parents who take their children for Female Genital Mutilation (FMG), and shut down institutions that teach children intolerance.

Cynics will dismiss these measures as a calculated move to occupy the political centre ground, but Christians might welcome them as expressions of humane values that reflect the belief that we are all equally made in the image of God and policies that help people to reflect that are worthwhile.

As Michael Gove said, ‘every life is precious and we should never define individuals by their worst moments’

Does a leader’s past really matter?

Recently the Daily Mail serialised Lord Ashcroft’s new book ‘Call Me Dave’ which they said would expose salacious details about the life of David Cameron, the Prime Minister. 

The unofficial biography, allegedly contains untrue allegations of drugs and debauchery though the truth of such claims has yet to be established and the book will be released on Monday 5^th October 2015.

Even murkier are the motives of the prime author.

He had been a key financial supporter of the Conservative Party - giving millions. 

In return he had been elevated to the House of Lords, despite disputes over his status as a ‘non dom’ (non-domiciled) tax payer or as a resident of the UK.

The breaking point between the political allies seems to have been the kind of role on offer in the previous Conservative Government.

Certainly, no one doubts now the genuine loving care the Camerons showed for their son Ivan, who tragically died suffering from a host of disabilities.

David Cameron has managed to win two elections and been Prime Minister since 2010.

He has represented the nation on the world stage and led us through economic and political turmoil, ranging from Scottish Independence to the Syrian war and the current refugee crisis.

But does a leader’s past really matter?, let’s take a look at some Old Testament leaders:

·         Abraham had a child by his wife’s maid rather than waiting for God to keep His promise of an heir.

·         Noah got drunk and exposed himself to his children.

·         Jacob tricked his brother and his father, stealing his brother’s blessing and birthright by offering hot stew to a hungry Esau and disguising his appearance with goat skins to fool his father Isaac.

·         Moses was a killer, and not even in self-defence, taking the life of an Egyptian slave master who was beating a Hebrew slave.

·         And finally, David arranged the death of a leading soldier to gain another wife for himself.

Many of the Old Testament leaders were hardly paragons of virtue, their past and history revealed all too human accounts of sex, alcohol, lies, cheating, violence and murder.

Most of that is in just the first two books of the Bible and when it comes to the book of Hebrews, all of these less than perfect men are affirmed as men of faith, genuine leaders and examples for us all.

We are, of course, shaped by our past, our genetics and what happens to us in life.

This is no determinism or excuse for how we now live.

Freedom means that we can choose to be and to become the women and men we ought to be, we can rise above our past and allow our mistakes and indiscretions to make us better human beings.

What matters is not so much what happens to us, but how we respond to it.

All of us including leaders, are not defined by our past and are certainly not the sum total of the choices we made in our youth, what matters is our goals and how we get there.

Lay aside every weight and the sin that clings to us.

Run with endurance the race set before us and look to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith.

He promises that no matter our past, with Him, the future shall be glorious.

HM Queen Elizabeth II the longest reigning monarch & Defender of the Faith

At 5:30pm on Wednesday 9^th September 2015, Queen Elizabeth II became this country’s longest reigning monarch, finally exceeding the 23,226 days of Queen Victoria

It was a moment in history that may never be repeated and it could well be many years before we begin to fully appreciate the monumental part she has played in modern British history.

She has worked with 12 Prime Ministers and has been an ever-present figure of stability both here and at an international level over the last six decades during which the world has experienced an unprecedented rate of change and technological development.

It has also been a time in history when the role of the monarchy has been threatened with accusations of increasing irrelevance, yet through it all our Queen has continued to be loved and admired by the vast majority.

Such is her popularity that it is easy to forget that many of her ancestors did not deserve or receive a similar level of respect.

Queen Elizabeth II has not demanded it from us, but rather has earned it through the humility and strength of character that she has displayed.

Jesus is the Servant King, but Elizabeth perhaps should be known as the servant queen.

For not only has she sought to serve us as her people, but she has also chosen to place herself under authority, serving Jesus as her own Lord and Master and seeking to follow in his footsteps.

Her devotion to this country and its people is unquestionable.

If you look at any coin with the Queen’s portrait on it you will see round her head ‘ELIZABETH II D.G. REG. F.D.’

This stands for ‘Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor’, translated as ‘Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, Queen, Defender of the Faith’.

For our Queen this is no mere title, but a command that she has fully embraced and there is no better evidence of this than her Christmas messages from the last few years:

• 'To many of us our beliefs are of fundamental importance. For me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life. I, like so many of you, have drawn great comfort in difficult times from Christ’s words and example.' (2000)

• 'I know just how much I rely on my own faith to guide me through the good times and the bad. Each day is a new beginning, I know that the only way to live my life is to try to do what is right, to take the long view, to give of my best in all that the day brings, and to put my trust in God. Like others of you who draw inspiration from your own faith, I draw strength from the message of hope in the Christian gospel.'  (2002)

• 'Although we are capable of great acts of kindness, history teaches us that we sometimes need saving from ourselves – from our recklessness or our greed. God sent into the world a unique person – neither a philosopher nor a general, important though they are, but a Saviour, with the power to forgive. Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities. It is in forgiveness that we feel the power of God’s love....It is my prayer that on this Christmas day we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord.'  (2011)

We cannot attribute our Queen’s long life and reign directly to her Christian faith, but it can be tied to her life of service that has inspired and won the hearts of so many.

She has put herself in God’s hands and as a faithful witness repeatedly calls on each one of us to do the same.

If you count our national anthem as a prayer, our Queen has been prayed for more than anyone else on the planet.

That request which is sung so often has been answered; she has reigned long over us and for that we can truly thank God

Assisted Suicide

On Friday 11th September 2015, the House of Commons will debate Rob Marris’ Assisted Dying Bill which came first in the Private Members’ Ballot and his Bill is the fifth attempt to establish in law a right to die, given various safeguards.

If passed the Bill would allow “competent adults who are terminally ill to choose to be provided with medically supervised assistance to end their own life”.

They must have a clear and settled intention to do this, have made a declaration to that effect on a prescribed form, in the presence of an independent witness, be over 18 and resident in England or Wales for not less than one year.

A registered medical professional must certify that the individual is terminally ill and expected to die within six months.

Two doctors must counter-sign the form, the one who will assist the dying and another independent doctor and the doctor who will assist the act must ensure that the individual is aware of palliative medicine, hospices and other care available.

They will prescribe the medicine to be used but it must be self-administered by the person choosing to die and the attending doctor must remain with the person until death has occurred, the Bill includes provisions for conscientious objection by medical personnel.

Any act contrary to these provisions could lead to five years in prison on conviction.

The British Medical Association (BMA) and many doctors oppose the Bill but the campaigning organisation Dignity in Dying claim that 82% of the general public support the idea.

Supporters like George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury along with some Christian argue that it would spare terminally ill people the pain and distress they are experiencing, they say that people should have this right to die because we are autonomous beings.

Their choice would also spare their loved ones from witnessing their suffering and save them the costs of caring for someone who is expecting to die within six months anyway.

Opponents contend that palliative care reduces the likelihood of unbearable pain and dispute the assumptions of autonomy.

Many Christians see life as a gift of God and suicide as rebellion against Him.

They also question how certain a doctor can be that a patient is likely to die within six months and have doubts about the safeguards for medics who conscientiously object to assisting someone to take their life, they are aware of the pressures on doctors who refuse to do abortions.

Public attitudes on prematurely ending life are muddled.

Capital punishment was abolished and the decision to invade Iraq strongly opposed but there are 200,000 abortions a year in the UK.

They may claim that assisting someone to take their own life is compassionate but do very little to care for the victims of violence in Syria and Iraq today.

If this Bill is passed it will be further evidence of this country’s flight from faith in an relationship with our Creator.

If you want the Bill to fail you can ask your MP to be in the House of Commons on Friday 11th September and to vote against it by visiting the 'No to Assisted Suicide' website

The Labour Party principle or power?

The Labour Party leadership contest has thrown up some challenging questions. 

Jeremy Corbyn’s candidacy has attracted thousands of new members who seem likely to give him victory on Saturday 12th September 2015.

The first question is how he will hold the party together? As at least eight Shadow Ministers have said they will not serve in his front bench team.

One estimate is that no more than thirty of the 232 Labour MPs support him and there has been talk of a “Resistance” movement.

Former leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have urged the party not to vote for him, as have David Blunkett and David Miliband.

John Major was so frustrated by his Europhobic right wing that he resigned and sought re-election to restore his authority as leader but Corbyn would face a much larger group of disaffected backbenchers and he was a serial rebel himself, voting 238 times against the party Whip in the last Parliament.

He is unashamedly a socialist, he favours higher income tax for the wealthy and increasing Corporation tax.

He has flirted with restoring Clause Four in the party’s constitution and the renationalisation of the railways and other public services.

He also advocates leaving NATO, scrapping our nuclear arsenal and moving closer to Russia, as well as expressing his admiration for Putin’s foreign policy and opposes a fair trade agreement with the USA.

He is coy about our EU membership but wants to see the social chapter strengthened, especially in relation to employment rights.

Corbyn’s socialism is traditionally what Labour stood for so why do so many MPs not support him.

The voters rejected socialism in 1979 and the party was out of office for eighteen years until Blair led it to the political centre ground.

Corbyn’s opponents fear that a lurch to the left will make the party unelectable again for another decade, so what matters most to the party: principle or potential power?

That prompts two other questions. First, are the voters still hostile to socialism?

Social media comment complains that the parties are too similar and leave little room for choice.

George Osborne’s adoption of the Labour policy of a compulsory living wage was an example of this and equally his aim to make a budget surplus normal and capping benefit at £23.000 per household has some support on the Labour benches.

So is some measure of continuity in government policy desirable or are voters comfortable with the possibility of major changes after elections.

The second question is whether those who consider principle more important than electability are comfortable with the possibility of repeated electoral defeats and a continuing Conservative government?

A large majority of Labour MPs are not. Is the popular preference for principle really evidence of naiveté?

The voters will decide that in 2020, but in the meantime will a divided Opposition effectively hold the government to account?

Our democratic system needs a strong Opposition as well as a sustainable government.

From that perspective, the Labour Party needs our prayers for wisdom regardless of our own political sympathies.

Why the proposed changes to Sunday trading laws are wrong

The government proposes to legislate to allow local authorities to relax restrictions on Sunday trading in their areas.

The current law permits small shops – with less than 3000 sq ft floor space – to open any hours but larger shops are restricted to six hours.

The proposal announced by the Chancellor in his Summer Budget 2015 is said to be worth £1.4 billion a year and breathe new life into high street trading.

Churches have always campaigned to keep Sunday as a special day, for rest, recreation and religious observance but Christians are now a small minority in secular Britain and told we should not impose our values on the majority.

It is not that simple and there are non-Christian reasons for the current restrictions.

Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), strongly opposes the extension of Sunday shopping and their members want time at home with their families.

Family breakdown is a serious issue in Britain today, costing taxpayers £43 billion a year supporting broken families and harming many children in those families.

The current law had a business rationale by limiting the opening hours of the big supermarkets gives the small shops a modest competitive advantage on Sundays.

The proposed changes could see more of them closing and if Sunday trading develops as the Government hopes it will also increase urban traffic as supermarkets will need additional deliveries.

There are also potential health issues as everyone needs a work/life balance that includes rest.

The pressures of seven day working will fall heaviest on managers who are not part-time but if Sunday is just like any other day time for community activities as well as family will be lost.

Nor should it be thought that only Christians oppose more Sunday working, secularism challenges all faith communities.

The Hindu Forum for Britain has said they would welcome one day a week set aside for spiritual reflection also Jews and Muslims will have similar concerns for their special days. 

Respect for religious liberty is indivisible, however much beliefs differ.

Atheists don’t have to be inconvenienced by treating Sunday as a special day as there are six other days on which to shop and they need time for rest, recreation and family life too.

Ultimately the proposal is another step in privatising religion out of the public sphere.

This runs counter to Article 9 of the European Convention and Article 18 of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Act which safeguards the right to practice religion in public and in community with others.

If Christians are discriminated against by limiting their freedom to worship on Sunday in order to privilege the minority that actively want to shop and trade on Sundays, the Government will be putting the clock back so far as non-discrimination is concerned.

The proposal to devolve the decision to local authorities sends a wake-up call to people of faith in each community to persuade their councils to Keep Sunday Special.

It will call for gracious campaigning not ignorant ranting and it calls for much prayer so that the fruit of the Spirit inspires the campaigning. 

Paul’s advice in 2 Corinthians 10:5 is very relevant.