Sermon preached on 18 December 2011

Here's what I had to say in the pulpit this morning.

I wish I had a pound for everyone who says to me, “It must be a busy time of year”. I’ve heard that from quite a few people this week. Well, there’s no time in my year that isn’t busy. And I enjoy this time of year a great deal.
[Read more...]

Merry What?

Just as a matter of interest, which of these two campaigns do you find offensive, if any?

Either

  1. The alleged Sexmas campaign which is purported to be about to be launched which aims to keep people from unwanted pregnancy and contracting HIV and other STDs. (More details from the usual outraged suspects, for example the Sun and the so-called Christian Institute)
  2. The Merry Pringles campaign which seems to aim to make us poorer and fatter by selling us tasty potato crisps.

I’m interested in this. Which is more offensive to those of us who follow the babe from Bethlehem?

Just asking.

Sermon – Keeping the Commandments

Here is the sermon that I preached this morning. There was quite a lot of chatter about if after the service. Not everyone will agree with me, but as usual, comments and debate are welcome here.

Jesus said, “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love”.

The news has been dominated this week with a story all about keeping within rules. Every time I’ve turned on the radio or picked up a paper, I’ve read greater and greater outrage about the MPs’ expenses scandal.

It isn’t surprising.

However, as I’ve been listening to that, I have a slightly different take on it to what most people have. You see, [Read more...]

The Embryology debates

From time to time, one finds oneself thinking about how one would vote in the House of Commons if one were there. Now, this is idle daydreaming, to be sure, but remember that I was actually a candidate at the last General Election. I set myself up for that daydreaming in the most public way possible.

Anyhow, there has been much about the Embryology bill uttered by church people. More heat than light from most voices I think.

So, how about the three supposedly most contentious elements to the bill, the ones that Gordon Brown is now giving a qualified free vote on. According to the BBC, these are:

  • Preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women and lesbians – under current legislation clinics must take account of the welfare of the unborn child including “the need for a father”. This will be replaced by the “need for supportive parenting”.
  • Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister.
  • Creating so-called hybrid animal/human embryos to aid stem cell research.

I find two of these fairly easy to decide on ethically. It is the middle one that I find really hard to call.

The first should just go through. It is a human rights issue – and no, it is not because I believe that anyone has the right to have a child, they don’t. I do believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and equity. The consequence of being against this provision seems to me to be that one would advocate taking children away from any same-sex couples that have them. Children don’t need a father if the father beats them, abuses them or harms them. Children do need loving, supportive parenting. Fathers can do that too.

The stem cell issue I also find quite easy to call – I’d vote in favour of this one too. I’ve read about what is being proposed and it does not seem to me to be monstrous at all.

It is the creation of a child with the right tissue match for a sick brother or sister that I really struggle with. I can see the desperation that would mean that I could understand parents wanting to do this. I just struggle with the ethical implications of creating a child for this purpose and in the face of the possibility that the treatment for the sibling might ultimately not work.

Faced with a bill with all these provisions in it, I’d vote for it. Given the freedom to vote for each bit, I’d certainly vote for one and three but find the middle one very, very hard to support on its own.

That’s how I’d vote. How about you?

Biobank – an ethical question

I’ve been invited to take part in the UK Biobank. It is project to collect genetic information from a hundreds of thousands of people in order to do research.

I’ve found trying to make my mind up whether or not to take part very hard but in the end decided not to do so.

Whilst the benefits of this projected research sound so laudible, I just cannot get over the civil liberties problems of joining in. I’m being asked to trust researchers and government officials decades into the future and that’s something I just can’t bring myself to do.

I don’t believe that any researcher today can make definitive promises about the ethical standards of researchers in the far future and to claim to do so is to mislead. I also think that the wool is being very gently pulled over people’s eyes with phrases like “genetic material”. That’s code language for DNA and this is an invitation to give a government agency my dna without any control over what they do with it.

It also seems to me that participants are being asked to consent to research without being able to make any judgement about what kind of research they are consenting to take part in. That’s not informed consent, it is ill-informed consent and it does not seem to me to be ethical.

So, with some reluctance, my answer is no. What would you do?

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Pausing just for a moment to remember Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle who died just over a week ago. He was a dedicated member of the Scottish Episcopal Church. [Indeed, he might even have been one of the 100 or so True Scottish Episcopalians that only exist at any one time].

I remember Lord Jauncey’s finest hour, in a synod in the Diocese of St Andrews, when he as Chancellor of the Diocese, asked the assembled company, with a passion which caused his voice to tremble, “But what, can anyone tell me, is a congregation, if it is not an unincorporated association?”

This was in the early days of the Episcopal Church’s recent inability to define what a congregation really is, who runs it and who is a member of it.

Less interestingly, Lord Jauncey represented the Duchess of Argyll in the headless man case and was one of the judges who was involved in the infamous Spanner judgement.

The Spanner Case deserves to be studied in ethics classes. Perhaps it is. It was ethics that I was really interested in when I was studying Divinity. If we thought more about how we decide what it is acceptable to do, then the church would be a much calmer place. (Which reminds me, I must do my All you need to know about Christian Ethics in 6 Cartoons gig again sometime).

The essence of the Spanner Case, as I understand it, is whether you can give consent to something which harms you, in a culture which is moving towards regarding the prevention of harm as its central ethic. It is a really interesting question. At first sight, the judgement always seemed illiberal to me, but it is an incredibly difficult ethical question to get your head around.

Anyway, after all he saw and participated in during his time in the legal and ecclesiastical worlds, Lord Jauncey deserves to rest in peace. And rise in glory.