Should we tolerate gay bashing, racism and mass murder?

Yes, it's a crazy title for a post. Of course we should never tolerate such things. And that is why I object wholeheartedly to the suggestion that our society should be tolerant. It should not be tolerant, but respectful; not tolerant, but loving; not tolerant, but giving.

Politicians of all shades, moralists, and church leaders seem to spend half their lives praising the virtues of a tolerant society or reminding us of the need for tolerance in the face of some dreadful human act. However, it does not apply to all acts. After an arrest of suspected terrorists, politicians call for tolerance towards Muslims, most of whom, we are told, are decent and law-abiding. Yet, after rioting in various English cities last year, the same politicians promise a zero-tolerance approach to law and order. In other words, the very idea of tolerance is relative; it depends on what each person chooses as deserving of tolerance.

It is the relative nature of the concept that is the most serious, but there is a further issue. The word itself is begrudging. If I say that I tolerate something it is as if I am putting up with it despite other intrinsic faults. I love and like my wife overall, but she does (surprisingly) have faults – her habit of stealing the duvet is irritating, for example – but I tolerate it. When someone says that we should be tolerant of homosexuality, they are, in effect, saying that we should allow it even though it is somehow wrong. There is a negative undertone.

I would love to see the word ‘tolerance’ replaced with a word that is less relative and more positive. Although I am not a big fan of using Tudor translations of the bible in the 21^st century, the Coverdale translation of 1535 includes a word that would fit the bill; a word of immense power; a word that I wish were still in use today – lovingkindness. This word combines the inner motivation of love with outward actions of kindness. I love, therefore I give good things.

Is not this what we see in Jesus? Let’s be clear, Jesus was never tolerant! If something was wrong he said so, and in no uncertain terms, but he was never begrudging in his acceptance of people. Such was his love that he stopped a crowd from stoning a woman to death – a pretty risky interference, I would say! His love motivated his kindness, yet he by no means tolerated the woman’s crime and made sure that she knew it. Later, Jesus gave himself in the ultimate act of sacrifice, but only once he had overcome any begrudging of what was expected of him. He did not tolerate his death, but offered his life out of lovingkindness.

Well done, Myles Coverdale! I think it’s time for a campaign in favour of his word, except that it might be better to split it in two for modern understanding. ‘Loving kindness’ – I like it – in fact, I love it. Let’s end the era of tolerance and welcome in a new age of loving kindness.

Federer, Murray, church and hypocrisy

I "went to church" yesterday. What I mean by this, in particular the punctuation marks, is that I went to a "consecrated" building in which an "ordained" person called a "priest" led us in "worship", starting "on page 55". All three of us in the "congregation" were expected to repeat written "prayers", respond with the written "responses", stand or sit when told and listen when spoken to. My mind started rambling and has not stopped since.

I rather liked the lady in charge. She was welcoming, jolly, clearly loved people and was both keen and committed to serving the God of her denomination. Of her denomination?  I don't mean this unpleasantly, for who am I to know what is in her heart. She may be far closer to Yahweh than me despite the apparent reliance on religious observance and form rather than overt spiritual depth. If I may slightly digress, who would have thought during the Wimbledon final how much Federer and Murray cared?  Only after the match did we see the true depth of their commitment. Appearances can be deceptive. Yet, I wonder how an "ordained priest" can fail to mention Jesus except during the repetition of formal texts prepared by some distant theologian and agreed by committee. Does this sound like true commitment to the Christ?

We were told, with a tone of mild apology, that we were not to have a sermon, but instead a reflection. I expected a reflection on Jesus or something spiritual at least. But no! We received, on the day before the synod of the Church of England, a history of women's place in the church and a hope that Anglicans would see sense over the issue of women bishops. We received a reflection on the organisation of an institution; a history of the denomination; and a prayer that the synod would agree with the speaker's views. Some of those against the appointment of women bishops were, we were told, hypocritical for using the bible to justify their positions.

Now, I have to admit that I agreed with almost all that was said about the stupidity of denying women a proper and full role in church. But I find it hard to see how opponents of women bishops are any more or less hypocritical in their use of scripture than the speaker herself, whose justifications for calling herself an "ordained priest", for wearing strange clothing, bowing to a cross on the altar, and so on and so forth are no doubt taken from the bible. Let's face it, we can justify anything we want if we carefully select scriptures and then use them out of their full, original context. It is strange how often we all use the charge of hypocrisy against those whose behaviour is similar to our own!

In retrospect, one of the readings during the "service" was extremely apt on the day of the Wimbledon final. Paul talked about divine strength coming out of or replacing human weakness. Both players yesterday tried their utmost to win, but it was a little touch of sporting genius that enabled Federer to win. I am not suggesting that this was divine intervention, but there is a parallel. Christians are all normal people. We can make immense efforts and utilise all our experience and skills, but that isn't always enough and in some cases is a waste of time. We need the Holy Spirit to take the lead, to give us the edge and take us to new heights. In particular, we need the Holy Spirit to lead us to our God. We cannot do it in our own strength or ability. Following an order of service is like playing tennis on the practice court. It is routine and may have benefits in transferring practice into the arena. But it takes a special spark to lift our worship or win a title.

When Paul talked about running a race to win it, he was not suggestingt that we all train harder or worship with more passion, but that we should rely more on the genius of the Holy Spirit to guide us. He never said 'read the bible harder', 'be more obedient to rules', 'say your prayers louder', or 'be a bigger bigot'. Such ideas would simply lead to more hypocrisy. Working in our own strength may win many plaudits, but never the big title.

of gays, bishops and blogs

First, sorry to have been out of touch for so long. I have not only been very busy, but also had problems accessing Blogger. Pages of strange symbols instead of web pages!

Why is it that so many people are obsessed by homosexuality in relation to christian mattters? I sometimes get the impression that Anglican bishops, fundamentalist preachers, bloggers and those who frequent christian forums are more interested in homosexuality than Jesus. Debates rage around gay marriage, gay bishops, gays going to hell and goodness knows what else. What's the worry?

I can't find anywhere that the bible says we have to tell other people how to live their lives, even if they do so in a way that we think is prohibited. On the other hand, I can find plenty of places where we are told to love people and tell them about the love of Jesus. It is then up to them whether they do anything about their lives or not. It is between them and our great God. It is not for us to judge or condemn, but to follow Jesus' example, who did not come to condemn but to save.

And why is homosexuality specially singled out for constant condemnation? Why not christians' own hypocrisy? Why not legalism in the churches? Why not... well just about anything? No, it's always honmosexuality - never greed, pride, idolatry, selfishness or hatred. Oh, of course, such things are mentioned frequently, but the debate rages around matters that should be beyond christian debate.

We should first cast out the planks from our own eyes before we start condemning the splinters in others'. Let's deal first with our seeming inability to love each other, our reliance on self, the constant turning of our backs to Jesus and the use of worldly ways in our vain efforts to be spiritually better. Perhaps then we might have time to focus on those of whom we disapprove. But I have a shrewd suspicion that once we can see more clearly through our own clean eyes, we will notice that Jesus loves imperfect homosexuals just as much as anybody else and offers them the same gifts as the rest of us imperfect heterosexuals.