How to Handle Difficult Issues Biblically

1 Corinthians 8-10 is an often-neglected bit of the New Testament (except for a few verses in chapter 9, usually read out of context). But actually it provides us with a really helpful pattern for working with difficult issues in the Church.

The problem in Corinth was the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. In first century Corinth, most meat was slaughtered in the context of worship at one or other of the many temples. It was then either served at public feasts, served at guild meals or sold in the meat market. Membership of most trades required being in a guild; they generally met in pagan temples. If you ate meat that had been sacrificed to idols, it was often understood as sharing in the worship of the god to whom it had been sacrificed, just as Communion was seen as sharing in Jesus' sacrifice. The Corinthian church was obviously divided on the issue, and had asked Paul for advice.

So how does Paul handle this difficult situation?

1. Come up with the best Biblical-theological case on both sides (8:1-7; 10:1-12; 10:14-22). Some people think Paul is contradicting himself here, but actually he's stating the strongest arguments on both sides before coming to a conclusion. So often when we try to have debates now in the church, people only state one point of view and as a result are rejected by the other side. Paul clearly understands both sides, and states both arguments well. The arguments here are Biblical / theological in character - Paul argues from theology and the Shema (8v4-6), from the history of Israel (10v1-11), from the nature of communion (10v16-21).
   
2. Recognise that both sides are probably right, and identify the real issue. If both sides are supported by good scriptural arguments, both are probably right. If they look like they contradict each other, we need to see why they don't really. Here, Paul does it by seeing the gap between eating meat and actually participating in the sacrifice, which is an attitude of mind or heart on the part of the worshipper. [It is of course very possible to have bad arguments from Scripture too; I'm not saying those are right.]
   
3. Recognise explicitly that many people won't have done all the theology, and will be responding from their gut. Honour them and their consciences (8:7-13). This is again something we often miss today, and in some situations one side's consciences may say not to do something and the other side may say to do it, and it's genuinely hard to honour both, but we should try anyway.
   
4. Follow the example of Jesus, who laid down his rights for others, but don't slip into legalism. Maintain the importance of Christian freedom, but let it be trumped by love. As soon as people start talking about their rights, they show they've missed the point. The point of rights for the Christian is that we lay them down for others. That's what Paul means by "follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" in 11v1. Jesus, being in very nature God, laid down his rights for us. Paul, having the right to financial support and to live as he wanted within the "law of Christ", gave those rights up for the sake of those he was ministering to. So we should also give up our rights for the sake of each other, even if that means avoiding offending their over-scrupulous consciences.

A couple of quick applications to current issues in the C of E:

People who talk about women's right to be bishops (for example) don't really understand what it is to live as a Christian, let alone to be a bishop. If women do have that right, they should be willing to lay it down for the sake of their brothers and sisters who would be offended by it. And those brothers and sisters should probably lay down their right not to be offended for the sake of preserving unity and allowing women to serve in the capacity of bishop.

What the homosexuality squabble debate desperately needs is people who are willing to articulate both sides of the Biblical argument and show how they fit together. So often what is produced by both camps is hideously one-sided, and sometimes just ignores important pastoral issues or runs roughshod over the consciences of those who in good conscience disagree, even if they do so without good reasons. Yes, if we disagree with someone, we should seek to persuade them, but we should do so in love - whether love for the knee-jerk homophobes or for the "out and proud" types.

Homosexuality and the Church - One Last Time

It's a difficult issue to avoid at the moment, largely because culture seems to be moving fast, and in a direction that is away from historic Christianity. There are three big issues here, and it's important to recognise that they are distinct issues - far too many people on all sides confuse them, to their peril.

1. What should our attitude be to people who experience same-sex attraction?

Simple - Love and compassion, same as everyone else. Sure, they are sinners, but so am I. Their same-sex attraction is not the most important thing about them, and we should resist labelling them as such. For years people have suffered opprobrium because of feelings they did not choose to have, and now they have become a political football. Treat them as individuals whom God loves, just like you are.

2. Is same-sex sex consistent with Christianity?

Again, the answer is pretty simple - No. Quite a few people disagree, but they always seem to do so on the basis of trying to treat people lovingly rather than having actually looked at the texts - they seem to twist the Bible's teaching on this to make it seem more compassionate. And I understand where they are coming from, I really do. But I still haven't seen a single decent argument from the Bible that same-sex sex is a good thing or a single respectable Bible scholar who argues that either Jesus or Paul would have approved of it. For those who do try to argue that same-sex sex is consistent with the Bible, here are a few questions which show the futility of their position:

1. If Paul had been told about a same-sex couple who wanted to marry and have consensual sex, do you honestly think he would have approved? (see here for Andrew Wilson pushing Rob Bell on that very question, which Bell keeps on avoiding.)
2. At the time the New Testament was written, were there people who were gay in the modern sense of the word? (if yes, then Paul wasn't just speaking into the context of pederasty; if no then orientation is only a social construct)
3. Can a human life be perfectly fulfilled without sex?
4. If you could be convinced that the New Testament condemned all same-sex sex, would you agree with it?

John 8 is a wonderful passage for thinking through our response to individuals. Having stopped all the criticism and condemnation of the woman there, Jesus turns to her and says "Neither do I condemn you; go now and leave your life of sin."

It's also worth saying that there's a big question for the church to wrestle with here. The Bible clearly speaks a lot about the value of same-sex friendships, and for centuries it was accepted as normal for two male friends to share a house without having sex. The question is "if there are two men who experience same sex attraction, and want to live together as friends but without having sex, is that ok?" I'd say yes...

3. To what extent should we expect society to regulate itself by Biblical standards?

This is the key to the same-sex marriage debate. In general, the older generations think this is still a Christian country. Constitutionally, of course, it is, but that is becoming more and more of an anomaly and it wouldn't surprise me if the gay marriage issue leads to disestablishment in time.

It is clearly wrong to expect Christians to disengage their brains either when in church or when relating to the big political questions of the day. Because Christians believe that the Bible is in some sense a record of God's revelation into the world, they should therefore see that it does have something to say. And since Christians believe that God's revealed way of running our lives is better than the way we'd just figure out for ourselves, we also believe that society would be better if it defined marriage as one man and one woman for life.

But I don't think that's the issue any more. In the 1960s, bishops argued that just because homosexual sex was a sin did not mean it should be a crime - it should be in the same category as greed and pride. We accept that same-sex sex should be legal now; we even accept that it makes perfect sense for there to be a form of legal recognition for same-sex partnerships. None of that is an issue any more.

4. So what's the problem?

The issue with the currently proposed law is none of those. If the proposed legislation were to rename "civil partnerships" as "same-sex marriages", I don't think there would be anywhere near as much opposition. The problems with the proposed law are essentially threefold.

• First, it is a big change without any mandate - it wasn't in a manifesto, there hasn't been proper public debate, etc.
• Secondly, it is desperately trying to say that two different things are in fact the same thing, and not quite managing it.
• Third, by saying that same-sex marriage is the same as marriage, it's opening the door for future discrimination against those who disagree on principle. I don't see the quadruple lock as surviving a legal challenge once same-sex marriage is ensconced as a human right, and I'm willing to bet we will see ministers and churches taken to court over this within the next decade.

Same-Sex Marriage

Here's my response to the government consultation on same-sex marriage:

The essence of marriage is that it is two different people committing themselves to be together for life. The experience of having to live with, and committing yourself to love, someone who is fundamentally different from yourself, is one of the key drivers for personal growth. It is within the context of two people committed to love the other "for better for worse" that children are best raised, because the couple have learned to accept each other. That is the best societal basis for tolerance.

The most fundamental distinction between people is gender, as recognised on passports and just about everywhere else. Marriage unites two people of opposite gender, who are thus very different and so as they learn to accept each other, so they learn to accept people who are fundamentally different from themselves. The same is not true of "same-sex marriage". It would be a union of two people who are the same at the fundamental level of gender (and of orientation). It therefore is a very different thing from marriage, and hence a different word should be used. It does not provide the same basis for transformation, or for growth in tolerance and acceptance of the other.

Review - OT Ethics for the People of God by Chris Wright

I used to dream of one day writing a book about how Christians should understand the Old Testament Law. It wouldn't make the mistake of saying the OT Law was a covenant of works rather than grace, nor would it make the mistake of assuming either that we should obey the OT Law or that we could ignore it. Instead, it would see what it meant for the OT Law to be Israel's response to God saving them by grace, and then apply it to us today. Only I'm not going to bother now, because I've discovered that Chris Wright did it years ago and did it much better than I could ever do.

Wright goes beyond the usual bounds of thinking about OT ethics. He stresses the importance of understanding the society and community as a whole (rather than just the rather Western individualism) and of understanding the ethics not just from the statute law but also from the more theological and narrative sections.

The distinctiveness of Old Testament ethics is ... the distinctiveness of a whole community's ethical response to unique historical events in which they saw the hand of their God.

Wright is superb on so many topics - the politics and economics of OT Israel, the role of family life, the implications for fellowship in the Church, attitudes to slavery, etc.

If I were to criticise the book, I would say that it is too short at (only!) 500-odd pages. He doesn't have space to think about how the New Testament handles the OT Law, or to go into much detail in areas like sexual ethics, feminist critiques of Israel, the implications of the OT village elders for church eldership, ... Having established his principles, he only has the space to pick a few examples and apply them. But given all that, this is a magnificent place to start to think on a deeper level about the ethical implications of the Old Testament for the church, and to engage with more academic scholarship on the issue.

The most fun (and encouragement, and challenge, and encounter with God) I've had reading an academic book for years!

Alternative Vote Referrendum

In the UK, we're about to have a referrendum on whether to change the voting system. Here's a video that explains some of the issues. And I know it ends up pro-AV. I'm not sure which way I'd vote - at the moment it's more likely I'd go for Alternative Vote than First Past the Post. If someone can point me to a sensible argument for FPTP, I'd be happy to consider posting that too.

Yes Minister on Bishops and the C of E...

Some Ways in Which British Politics is Broken

The Voter Power website is good at illustrating some of the problems with the British electoral system. Essentially, votes in small marginal constituencies count for far more than in large safe ones. (HT Bishop Alan)

Another issue is the whole clash between constituencies and parties. Realistically, most people vote for the party they want to win, but who they elect is a local representative who may or may not have anything to do with the area and may or may not be competent. When there is only a fairly small parliamentary majority (as in the Major government), the identity of the MPs matters quite a lot, but is largely irrelevant to the electoral process.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister is elected on a very small set of issues, but then proceeds to implement their policy across a whole range of issues. Topics like abortion and the death penalty are strongly emotive, but we don't get an opportunity to choose either way.

Most of the time, the British system works like an elected 5-year dictatorship, with decent representation for the communities who voted for the dictator (because those MPs are in the government), and less good representation for those who didn't (because those MPs are in the opposition). Of course, the communities don't have much say in which individual represents them, just which party. And that seems kind of dumb.

Politics and the General Election

I figure I ought to do at least one post on politics...

Contrary to people's impressions of me when we get talking about politics, I've voted for almost all the major parties, and a few minor ones as well! And a lot of that is because the issues I think are the big ones aren't even on a lot of radars.

For example, the biggest issue for me almost every time is abortion. Because I think that abortions are killing human beings - whether or not it's exactly on a par with infanticide is largely irrelevant - I think it's very important that we as Christians should stand up for the vulnerable and oppressed, in this case the unborn. So I have difficulty seeing how Christians can vote Lib Dem (as they're usually the most pro-abortion of the major parties). Having said that, I've voted Lib Dem at least once in a local council election... But abortion just isn't on most parties' radar. So even though I'll often vote for the most pro-life of the candidates standing, the Conservatives are the most pro-life of the major parties and I'd expect the most a Conservative government might do is reduce the limit from 24 weeks to 22 weeks.

I don't think any of the people with a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister are in it because they want to serve people - they're in it for what they can get out of it (in terms of power, prestige, etc). However, even then, there's a difference between aiming to be in power in 6 years' time (likely to mess stuff up) or to be thought of as a good Prime Minister in 50 years' time (likely to do a better job).

And that's why I'll probably be voting Conservative this time. That and the fact I have moderately strong leanings towards small-statism, which does at least seem to be an issue in this election.

It's worth adding that if it wasn't for their policy on abortion, I might well be supporting the Lib Dems.

Make Life Flow

As a church, we're supporting Tearfund's Make Life Flow campaign. As part of this campaign, several videos have been made, set in a village in Uganda where girls have to walk a long way to get water - the only spring is 1½ miles from the village, and down a very steep hill. The village in question is clearly in a bit of Uganda where there is plenty of water - Tearfund have helped to build a large rainwater storage tank, and there's lots of greenery around.

I don't doubt the campaign is a good one, but the videos left me unsettled because there were so many questions unanswered.

1. As far as I can tell, every single old village in the UK (before water mains) was built on a river, stream or spring. Why was this one not? Were they refugees from some conflict? I can understand villages being built away from springs in areas where there isn't much water around, but this isn't one of those areas.
2. In areas where there isn't a regular stable water supply (e.g. Israel), people have been building underground cisterns to store water in for thousands of years - at least as early as Genesis 37. Essentially, Tearfund have helped the village to do that (except with overground tanks). Why didn't they have cisterns already? Why wasn't that part of building the village in the first place?
3. In the video, there were lots of women and teenage girls, but very few men and teenage boys (except the pastor and the schoolteacher). Where were they? The obvious answer would be doing some kind of herding work, but if all the men were some distance away, why was there so much danger of the women being raped on their way to collect water? And if they weren't some distance away, why weren't they offering to protect the women collecting water?
4. Why weren't the men helping to improve the infrastructure, when it's obviously something which creates a lot of benefits and their physical strength would have been useful?

I guess it seems that there are so many background questions and issues that need tackling to really do something about poverty like this. I think I understand urban poverty far better - not that I know what to do about that either... Still, what Tearfund are doing looks like a good start.

Am I a Conservative Evangelical?

It isn't the sort of question that keeps me awake at night. But it's something I think about occasionally...

It's easy to say that I used to be. 5 years ago I was involved in lay leadership in a conservative evangelical church, going to conservative evangelical camps and conferences and so on and agreeing with most of what was being said, and reading mostly conservative evangelical books. I criticised mainstream conservative evangelicalism on issues like their failure to communicate the primacy of grace when discussing homosexuality, but I did so from within the movement.

But am I still one? My context has certainly changed - I'm now an ordained minister in a charismatic evangelical church and while I still go to some conservative evangelical events, I probably go to more charismatic evangelical ones and read quite a lot of books from both charismatic and open evangelical perspectives. And I seem to fit the label "conservamatic" fairly well, though I'm a lot more comfortable in high church settings than most conservatives or charismatics, and don't like being defined as fitting into any one group.

The thing is, my theology hasn't changed much at all. There are quite a lot of areas where my understanding has deepened or clarified, but I don't think my theology has moved much. The big things that have changed which affect whether I'm a conservative evangelical or not, as far as I can tell, are:

• I've realised that conservative evangelicals often emphasise and word things in reaction against points of view they've come into conflict with - especially Ryle's caricature of 16th century Roman Catholicism, modernist liberalism, postmodern syncretism and pentecostalism.
• I've realised that there are a good number of charismatics who don't fall into the traps which I used to associate with them, and that a lot of them don't mean what I thought they meant in the way they talk about the Holy Spirit. Many of them also seem to use the ecstatic gifts (which I never really thought had ceased) sensibly rather than just ignoring them as the conservative evangelicals did.
• I think I understand much better how it is quite possible to be a sincere and Bible-believing Christian and to be a convinced charismatic (like my training incumbent) or anglo-catholic (like the local suffregan bishop), and I'm happy getting along with such people and even being a regular member of their churches. I think there are much more important issues than church politics, such as love for God and others, mission and evangelism, and so on.
• Conservative evangelical culture has solidified a bit more and moved slightly, and I'm not hanging around with them as much.

Having thought about it a bit, I think I'm happy and comfortable being a conservative evangelical (albeit one with charismatic leanings and some catholic sympathies) when I hang around with conservative evangelicals. And when I hang around with charismatics, I'm happy being a charismatic with strong Biblical tendancies and conservative influences. When I hang out with open evangelicals, I'm happy fitting in at the more conservative end of open evangelicalism unless they start conservative-bashing. And when I hang around with wider groups, I'm happy not really fitting any label well but saying controversial stuff and trying to mix up the stupor that seems to hang over such gatherings. And I think and find it is quite possible to be all of those without inconsistency.

A Scandal in Spiritual Illiteracy

The other day, I was at a gathering of curates. (What's the collective noun for curates?) We were discussing a book which was partly about the Charismatic movement. And it came out in conversation that half of the people in the room had no experience of charismaticism at all. I think that's a scandal.

Consider this - roughly 1/3 of the world's Christians are charismatic or Pentecostal. Among regular church-attenders in this country, the proportion of charismatics and Pentecostals is probably about 20% and growing fast. And half the people in the room had no experience of them at all, and we were all ordained ministers in the Church of England.

When I was considering training for ordination in the Church of England, we discussed my experience of the breadth of the Church, and I was told to spend 3 months worshipping at a high Anglo-Catholic church. I did, and I found it helpful. When I was at college, I made an effort to broaden my experience as much as possible. I spent time at churches in difficult UPAs and in the countryside because I was more used to the suburbs. I spent time at an Anglican church in the developing world because I've lived in the UK all my life. I got to the point where I've got a decent level of exposure to pretty much everything that happens in the C of E. Some of it I disagree with; some of it I think is wrong or mad, but at least I'm aware of it and have spoken to people who do it and got to know a bit about where they are coming from. Much of that was expected of me as part of my training; some of it was me wanting to understand where different people were coming from.

So how on earth have people got through selection and ordination training and even got ordained and through a decent chunk of their curacies without any experience or understanding of the charismatic movement? I'm not blaming them at all - it's the job of those providing and overseeing their training to make sure that that happens, and I think it's a scandal that they have been allowed to do so.

(As it happens, I think the charismatic movement tends to get some things wrong and a lot of things right - not least the expectation of personal experience of God's action. But that's largely irrelevant to this rant...)

A Socially Responsible Government

It's great knowing that the government is really responsible, uses taxpayers' money well and always thinks through the consequences of its actions.

For example, they've released a new game, which encourages road safety.

"Teach 'em a lesson - hit the kids who aren't wearing helmets!" - that's exactly the right message to send to people, isn't it? I wonder how many focus groups it took to come up with that one?

Notice anything wrong? Anything that might possibly be contrary to government policy or anything like that? If not, have you ever considered a career as a politician?

The one encouraging thing about this is that it helps me realise that the government aren't really nasty and malicious, just really really incompetent...

Hat tip to Greg.

Politics and the Family

There was a good piece in the Telegraph today about the modern decline of the family and how it links into politics and so on. For me, the scary statistic was that half of all cohabiting couples split up before their child's first birthday. (I don't know if that just applies to first children or not...)

I guess therefore that part of what it means to be a witness to the transformation that Christ brings is being a culture where husbands stay with their wives and vice versa and where children are brought up in the best possible environment, even if it is more expensive. And of course, seeking to transform society in a loving way so that the best possible support is provided for children while being loving and supportive to those in situations where that is not possible.

Drugs and the Welfare State

Betel is a Christian community that helps people break their addictions to drugs and alcohol. They started in Spain, but when they branched out into England, they found that they were having very little effect. Until they banned people in their centres from claiming disability benefit. After the free supply of money, simply for being addicted to drugs, ended, the people had far more incentive to work and to come off drugs. And they could and did and do work - they were only "disabled" because they were always taking drugs.

Simply put, the way the welfare state is set up essentially subsidises drug addiction and makes it much harder for people to come off drugs.

Letting Go...

The other day, at dinner, I was chatting to a couple of my good friends, from different churchy backgrounds to me. We all admitted that there had been times in the last few years when we had faced a difficult decision. We had to choose to be willing to let go of our backgrounds (in my case conservative evangelicalism), and whether others would think us "sound" or whatever, and be willing to follow Jesus and the truth, wherever it went, even if it went to liberal catholicism (for example).

None of us had moved much as a result of letting go, but we'd all moved to nearly the same place. And we all strongly identified with the tradition we'd come from (conservative evangelical, charismatic, etc), but often now found ourselves often on the outside of it. As a friend of mine put it, he often finds himself falling between several stools. And as I responded, that's a lot better than landing directly in the poo.

Infighting and Church Politics

A Happy New Year to all of you!

Quiz question: After King David had conquered so much of the Promised Land, according to 1 Kings, how did the first bit of that land cease to be under Israelite control? How did the destruction start?

The answer is not what you might expect...

In 1 Kings 9, Solomon tries giving away some of the Promised Land to Hiram, King of Tyre, but Hiram doesn't want it.

King Solomon gave twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram king of Tyre, because Hiram had supplied him with all the cedar and pine and gold he wanted. But when Hiram went from Tyre to see the towns that Solomon had given him, he was not pleased with them. "What kind of towns are these you have given me, my brother?" he asked. And he called them the Land of Cabul, a name they have to this day.
1 Kings 9:11-15, NIV

But the first bits that are clearly conquered by outsiders are done so far more because of infighting among the Israelites, specifically between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Asa [King of Judah] then took all the silver and gold that was left in the treasuries of the LORD's temple and of his own palace. He entrusted it to his officials and sent them to Ben-Hadad son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, the king of Aram, who was ruling in Damascus. "Let there be a treaty between me and you," he said, "as there was between my father and your father. See, I am sending you a gift of silver and gold. Now break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel so he will withdraw from me."

Ben-Hadad agreed with King Asa and sent the commanders of his forces against the towns of Israel. He conquered Ijon, Dan, Abel Beth Maacah and all Kinnereth in addition to Naphtali.

1 Kings 15:18-20, NIV

Quick and easy moral from those stories - the destruction of God's people starts when the leaders are more concerned about looking good than about living in the way of God's promises, and when they are more concerned with winning their own little internal battles than about helping God's kingdom to grow.

When church politics is about trying to look good in front of others rather than genuinely being faithful to God (even if he disagrees with us) or when it's about our side winning whichever stupid internal Christian v Christian battle we're fighting at the moment, it leads ultimately to the destruction of God's people and is therefore Wrong.

Immigration Law

I should confess a slight personal interest in this rant - my sister and aunt both married Americans. At college, two students have already been forced to leave the country (one of them came back), another one got refused entry, one staff member nearly got refused entry and another student currently has 7 days left to appeal or leave.

British immigration law is stupid.

The Biblical perspective on it is that Jesus was a refugee in Egypt for a bit, thereby massively dignifying the status of refugees, and meaning we should treat them well. In addition, in the Old Testament, Israel's law stresses the importance of treating foreigners who come to live in the land well, as long as they don't do stuff like inciting people to worship false gods or anything.

In fact, that seems like a good model. What's happened in Britain of course is that we've got scared of immigrants as a result of international terrorism and so on, and so have massively tightened up the law, without massively tightening up on enforcement. So now any terrorists wanting to come and live in the UK have to do it illegally rather than legally, which I'm sure will put most of them off because terrorists are good, law-abiding folk.

Although I've heard people annoyed or scared about immigrants from countries such as Pakistan (some of which is fear of terrorism, some of which is racism) and Poland (but they're citizens of an EU country, we can't really keep them out), I haven't heard anyone annoyed or scared about immigrants from countries where the culture and population are essentially descended from Brits.

You don't see scare stories on the news about Australian or American immigrants, whatever their ethnic background. You don't find people being all worried about the Canadians or New Zealanders who just moved in next door.

But the British government, in their infinite wisdom, seem to have managed to make life difficult for the very large number of immigrants from former colonies, who no-one is worried about. And that is the main substance of this rant, because it looks like incompetence rather than partially justified fear.

I don't know exactly what the forms ask or how the system works, but it seems to me sensible on a purely human level, without even bothering to do theological reflection on it, to partially filter applicants according to the country they are from. Do nationals from their country have any history of causing social problems in the UK or similar countries? If no, I don't see the problem with granting them indefinite leave to remain. Under the current system, Barack Obama might find difficulty in getting permission to work in the UK long term. I don't see any reason whatsoever why that should be the case.

And nor am I saying that people with Pakistani nationality, for example, should all be kept out, just that if we're worried about terrorism, maybe we should stop putting so much effort keeping out people who aren't going to be a problem, start genuinely welcoming immigrants who need out help and spending all the extra time concentrating on discerning which of the people from potentially problematic countries will cause trouble, and keeping them out.

Proposal: give automatic leave to remain indefinitely to all citizens of stable friendly countries with sufficiently similar cultures, and welcome genuine refugees.

U.S. Presidential Election

I asked this last time too...

With the US being over so many time zones, and with the exit polls and results from the East Coast having the potential to affect stuff on the West Coast and in Hawaii, why don't they just do the obvious thing, and have all polling stations open for the same 24 hours, so that in Maine it might be 5am Tuesday to 5am Wednesday, but in California it might be midnight Tuesday to midnight Wednesday or whatever. That way, all the polls would close at the same time, and results from one coast wouldn't influence those from the other.

Brazil 15 - Politics 2 - The Force of Madness

Well, it seems as if good old Nilton has pretty much stopped with the noisy vans and the flag wavers and so on, which leaves the main person doing the campaigning as being Andre Campos. In the interests of equal-opportunity blogging, I thought I'd give you some reasons not to vote for Andre "The Force of Madness" Campos...

• He is incapable of smiling (see above picture), and yet his face seems to be better than any of his policies, which aren't mentioned.
• He can't count either. There are clearly two people named on the election poster (his proposed vice-prefeito is in the small print at the bottom), but three faces. Or maybe him or his vice-prefeito is just very two-faced.
• He has the biggest and the loudest loudspeaker vans. If an Andre Campos van is driving past your block, and you have the misfortune to be on the ground floor, you can't hear loud rock music. He is therefore the least considerate of all the candidates.
• He appears to be some kind of communist (see above picture).
• As well as the forms of campaigning which never should have been legal, he still uses some of the forms of campaigning which are no longer legal, like painting on walls, which is apparently Officially Naughty now. All the people I've seen actually painting political stuff on walls (rather than political stuff that was already painted) have been painting Campos.
• In common with the other candidates, he is reported to have offered assistance to several church groups, but only if they agree to endorse him.
• The poorest area I have been to in this city had all the walls plastered with Campos slogans, which suggested he is the buyer-in-chief of the votes of the poor.

Brazil 11 - All the Way Down

Brazil is a country with virtually no social security and where politicians are famous for being corrupt. As a result, society genuinely seems to go all the way down. If human existence is possible at a given level, there will be people there, it seems, from the luxury beachside flats to scavenging with the vultures on a rubbish dump.

I used to wonder why there was no household recycling here. Now I realise that it is a mercy that there is not - recyclable material is a major source of income for those at the rubbish dump.

Here there is capitalism in a way that doesn't seem to exist in either the UK or the US. Politicians are widely viewed as corrupt, and voting is compulsory. That means that votes in the poorest areas can be essentially bought for as little as a T-shirt or $1 a day to stand by the side of a road in the hot sun waving a flag. And the politicians have very little incentive to do anything about it. Free schools in the poorest areas are apparently next to useless, and free hospitals are described by Brazillians as abattoirs. And even if the poorest children did go to school, they would still need money to survive and so have to work.

The poverty here is shocking. And without the poorest children having access to good schools, there seems to be little to keep them from following in the same poverty as their parents. Brazil is the country with the biggest financial difference between rich and poor in the world, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Keeping the poor poor keeps their votes cheap.

Now I think I understand something of the oppression of the poor, and a tiny bit of God's anger against it.