We know it’s there, but how has it become so embedded in our society? The porn industry has successfully manipulated its way into mainstream society without large scale opposition. There have been notable exceptions (Whitehouse, Longford, Dworkin, Dines) but in the main we have willfully turned a blind eye to the prevalence of porn. Perhaps, even more shockingly, liberalism has become the bastion for the freedom of the porn industry to purvey its trade virtually unrestricted in the western world. Well let’s have a further look at this. Here is one definition of liberalism:

[Liberalism is the] concept that the preservation of individual liberty and maximization of freedom of choice should be the primary aim of a representative government. It stresses that all individuals stand equal before law (without class privileges) and have only a voluntary contractual relationship with the government. It defends freedom of speech and press, freedom of artistic and intellectual expression, freedom of worship, private property, and use of state resources for the welfare of the individual.
(www.businessdictionary.com)

That the freedom of the individual is paramount is based on the premise of natural goodness. Whilst we all have capacity for great goodness, this is far from the full story. Interaction with porn will show anyone with eyes open the twisted nature of much human thinking and many human relationships. The boundary of individual freedoms is the welfare of others. This is where liberalism asks itself the most challenging question- Is it better to restrict the right of the individual for the benefit of others? In the case of porn this question has been lamentably ignored. As the evidence of the harm of porn has gathered the governing elite have been silent. Shame on them.

I am aware of porn designed for females and gay porn but what follows is solely focused on (the vast majority of) porn designed to appeal to heterosexual men.

Consider this:

‘As men fall deeper into the mental habit of fixating on these images, the exposure to them creates neural pathways. Like a path is created in the woods with each successive hiker, so do the neural paths set a course for the next time an erotic image is viewed. Over time these neural paths become wider as they are repeatedly travelled with each exposure to pornography. They become the automatic pathway through which interactions with women are routed…With each lingering stare, pornography deepens a Grand Canyon-like gorge in the brain through which images of women are destined to flow…All women become potential porn stars in the minds of these men.’

Dr William Struthers, Wired For Intimacy, p8

It is utterly outrageous that liberalism – which has done so much to champion the equality and dignity of women – should be in bed with the porn industry. That Larry Flynt is considered a hero for challenging the restrictions of the state in order to peddle pornography is a vile contradiction. You may think I’ve gone a little too far. I always like to ask myself the following question when opposing a particular viewpoint – What are its redeeming features? Well, in this case, there are none. What do they care about – the end user, the porn actors or the children who might discover their material? This is a multi-billion pound industry that is so financially valuable that the authorities dare not intervene. It requires a grassroots movement who will protect children, reject violence against women, will help men trapped on the internet for hours on end and are prepared to be castigated as haters of sex to make our voice heard.

It’s because we have such a high regard for sex that we reject pornography – the shortcut to misery. We will campaign to protect our human dignity by refusing the worst excesses of a greedy and amoral business that seeks to destroy sexual pleasure and replace it with sexual degradation and slavery. Supporting the rights of pornographers to make money isn’t ‘progressive’; it is complicity in condemning a generation to misery.

For a more detailed blog on the lies of pornography read @jjmarlow here.

For CARE’s resources on this issue, click here.

Twitter is the best place for crowd-sourcing opinion on political matters. So thanks to Jamie Reed MP for putting it out there with this relevant question. Certainly, ‘Christian’ opinion has been in the news with increasing regularity over the past decade from a very low base – you could be forgiven for thinking that we folded as a company after the Keep Sunday Special Campaign. The key question of analysis then is this: What has changed to precipitate this?

Firstly, I think the church has woken up to the fact that its influence has waned. More positively, the evangelical church has recognised that the creation mandate demands a greater stake in society – a narrow mission of words-only evangelism is a limited message to a hurting world. So the Christian involvement in the campaign against human trafficking (including legislative meat to enforce prosecution and care for victims) has been huge.

Secondly, culture is moving at speed to challenge the assumptions and foundations of the past. What might have been seen as ‘sacred cows’ like the traditional formulation of a marriage relationship are suddenly up for grabs. This has led to a wide gap where a kind of ‘sacred/secular divide’ in understanding leads to all kinds of mistrust and talking past one another. And Christians have been guilty of purely defensive thinking, defending territory and not arguing positively for alternatives (granted the media aren’t so keen on positive stories).

Thirdly, politicians do not declare their hands openly, especially on social issues. Perhaps this is because they cannot foresee the rate of change or maybe it’s because such scrutiny at election time is uncomfortable. Either way, it results in a sense of a democratic deficit.

Which leads me to my final plea to fellow Christians: We are Christ’s ambassadors. Deal with it. I often tell the story of when I first met my MP. At the end of our first constituency meeting he said this: ‘Some of the nastiest, most aggressive letters I receive are from my Christian constituents’. Where is our value of respect for human dignity in all this? We should be those who thank, those who encourage, those who pray and those who challenge recognising we have a human being in front of us. Yes, we sometimes have our backs against the wall, yes we are passionate about issues. But if we win the battle through dubious tactics we will lose the war because we deny the gospel a hearing. And deservedly so.

Recently I was part of a discussion group that looked at various aspects of medical ethics. During the conversations we had, many of us reflected on personal encounters with pain whether they be physical, mental or emotional. In the midst of this, the seminar leader shared the story of a couple who had been told they were expecting a baby with Edwards syndrome- a condition that meant his life expectancy would be short. They were presented with the possibility of a termination on receipt of this news. For them, though, this was no dilemma. Their Christian faith led them to continue with the pregnancy and so a boy was born. We were told that in his brief life he brought much joy to many people. Indeed when he died some months later friends were moved to bring stories of how their lives had been changed by meeting this dependent bundle of personhood. Such accounts reminded me that there is much to be learned through suffering. It is not something we welcome but it is an opportunity for us to recognise that we are not in complete control of our lives. And that leads us to further questions about humanity and the existence of God. We should shrink back from becoming complacent or fatalistic, but we can resist the clamour for assisted dying. A compassionate response demands improved investment in the hospice movement and our world-leading palliative care. Is pain the worst thing we can face? Or is it a society that determines when our quality of life has dipped below acceptable?

Admittedly, it’s not my most inspiring of blog titles but I did indeed visit the green and pleasant pastures of The Quinta Conference Centre last week for the annual UCCF student leaders gathering, Forum. This wasn’t a first for me, it was my 9th such journey, this time to team teach in two ‘Theology of Social Justice’ workshops. So what impressions grabbed me by the throat as I mused in the company of over 800 students?

Firstly, the combination of serious discipleship peppered with great fun and ridiculous humour. I can’t think of a better way of making an important point about the challenge of following Jesus than encouraging the audience to laugh at themselves and then delivering the inspiration of how it could be different. Graham Daniels told the story of former QPR footballer who earlier in his career as a 17 year old had spoken up at a club Christmas dinner to say something of the significance of celebrating Jesus. But the words just wouldn’t come. So he offered a song instead ‘Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord for loving me’. He made it through all three verses as sniggering colleagues tried to hold it together. As you can imagine, training was a nightmare for a while ‘Come on Dennis, sing us a song!’ But it left an indelible impression on at least one, for later he became a Christian. This account made us all laugh precisely because we can all remember occasions when we felt entirely inadequate in attempting to explain our decision to become a disciple. And it inspired and encouraged us because, despite our faltering words, God chooses to use such weak and trembling vessels.

Secondly, there was such an intentional thread of an all-compassing biblical worldview. This has been such an encouraging development in the conference ethos. Whether it be approach to academic study, involvement in Uni sports teams or influence in the Student Union they are all places where being a Christ-follower should be encouraged, supported and resourced. These are not places where Christians carry out occasional forays to prove their evangelistic bravery but rather places where the Spirit of God is at work enabling the incarnational presence of His people to live and love. Becky Pippert’s challenge to us all was to ‘practise the presence of Christ’- in other words to sense His Lordship in the midst of the struggles of everyday living. By being there and showing the wonders of grace we can point the not-yet-followers to another way.

By modelling and teaching in this way, Forum will deliver a great legacy to the wider church. We will all benefit through being joined by thousands of younger Christians inspired to live differently and equipped to apply Jesus’ message to the every aspect of life.

‘I promise to obey’ used to be written into every church marriage service – well, for 50% of the participants anyway. Obedience wasn’t seen as negatively as it is now. But due to the abuse of power, obedience has fallen by the wayside, trampled and cast aside by the individualistic anthem: ‘I will survive’. When trust has been obliterated by postmodern cynicism, what is there left that binds our communities together?
Common self-interest is increasingly uncommon, our values and virtues are so diverse that we agree on little. And so, rather than commitments of obedience, our way of doing life has become ‘I’d like to do what I can get away with’. Do I want to obey the letter of the law on my tax return? Do I want to be scrupulously honest on all insurance documents? No, I don’t want to but there is something bigger at stake than what I want – the truth.

We all know that if none of us were truthful on our tax returns the system would fall apart. But if we decide to hide or distort the facts we do so because we think we can get away with it – that we are unaccountable – and that the honest ones will make up the difference. The problem with truth is that it lays claim to all sorts of things I would like to keep under the banner ‘personal freedoms’. I will defend the right to live unhindered lives but when such freedoms lead to irresponsible parenting, civil disobedience and the peddling of nasty rumours we have to ask questions. Why has it come to this? Why do we all seem to be so hacked off with authority?

Well, if we have no higher sense of authority then we only have ourselves to answer to. If a phone hacker thinks he will be rewarded for getting a great story by illegal means then it’s well worth it. If a rioter thinks society owes him more than his struggling everyday existence, then opportunistic looting seems ideal. God is truth- absolute and personal. I can fool some of the people some of the time, I can even fool myself occasionally, but I cannot hide from the glare of divine truth. Pilate asked Jesus ‘What is truth?’ Truth is the only standard that really matters.

Whilst we might think of it as cold and abstract, the Bible is clear, God is truly compassionate and loving. He knows my tendency for self-centredness and he knows I could never justify my actions before him. So he sent his perfect Son to live and die for me. I live knowing that I’m loved and secure but that I’m accountable, too. And I’m also realistic about human nature. I will challenge and try to shape authority where necessary. I will encourage honesty and cheer on those who give offenders a second chance. And I will ask for your forgiveness when self-righteousness becomes my mechanism for unloving finger-pointing. But hacked off with authority? Not me, Authority has done me every good.

Like many I have observed (and participated in) the downfall of the News of the World over the last few days. It cannot be denied that this would never have happened so quickly ten years ago. Indeed, I don’t think it would have happened at all had social media not created such a vibrant, responsive environment for co-ordinating action. The advertisers withdrew their financial support for the newspaper due to overwhelming action on Twitter & Facebook that made campaigning so easy. Firstly, the top advertisers were listed in a process that ‘went viral.’ Secondly, the advertisers’ Twitter names, email addresses and phone numbers were distributed with ruthless effectiveness. All that was required of those who felt strongly was a tweet, an e-mail or a phone call. And for those determined to have their voice heard- all three. Done in a matter of minutes. The use of #hashtagging made the whole process so straightforward, a timeline could be a relentless feed of further prompts, news updates on the advertisers’ positions and identification of the next series of targets (e.g. newsagent chains). I ‘phoned one such chain who (when they had chance to get back to me) said they were inundated with calls and e-mails. So- what can we learn from all this?

Firstly there are many in the Christian world who are sceptical about the benefits of social media. It is true that it can be a distracting time waster, that it may not last forever and that it can be difficult to get started in engaging with the media savvy community. My observation over the last couple of years is that social media (especially Twitter) has become the ‘City gate’ of our society. It’s where people exchange ideas, challenge assumptions and talk about the most urgent issues of the day. Just as the ‘City gate’ of Jerusalem was a place the influential ignored at their peril, so we should be enthusiastically encouraging engagement by Christians across the land.

Secondly we, the Christian community, have often been poor at pooling our social capital and using it to good effect for campaigning on issues. This is of course fraught with danger. We must choose our issues carefully with wisdom and grace. We should be prepared to reach out to those who don’t share our faith with whom we have a common view on a particular campaigning front. And we shouldn’t let our occasional disagreements with each other stop us from working tirelessly together when we can.

Lack of engagement demonstrates a lack of care. It’s time we used what we have to make a difference for our society.

Sir Alex Ferguson by Andrea Sartorati

Let’s get this straight; I don’t support City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea or Leeds. But I have been recently musing the widespread adulation of Sir Alex Ferguson that has now led to 2 MPs (Tony Lloyd, Graham Stringer) calling for his elevation to the House of Lords. You cannot argue against the proposition that he is one of the most effective football mangers of all time, the facts speak for themselves. But I am concerned that further public recognition will send very damaging signals to society about attitudes and behaviour in public life. He is a person who regularly uses intimidation as a tool to control others. Psychological intimidation is an outrageous abuse of power in any situation and, such is his position, that he usually holds all the cards (e.g. the recent incident of the exclusion of the journalist who dared to ask about Ryan Giggs). Love is the very opposite of overbearing control- it comes from inner security that generates freedom and encouragement. It is not self-obsessed; it cares more about others than its own reputation. Sir Alex Ferguson has shown that when he feels affronted, he withholds forgiveness and co-operation (e.g. The BBC’s investigations into his son’s activities as a football agent that has led to years of non-communication). These may be understandable reactions but they are hugely damaging to everyone concerned and should be challenged not encouraged by further decoration. A friend once said ‘I’m interested in having courageous conversations’. I hope those around him are having such conversations to help see reconciliation as the better way. And in the meantime, elevation to public office seems entirely inappropriate- do we want playground bullies up and down the land to be given a large, public seal of approval?

Picture via www.guardian.co.uk

A tweet from Tom Harris MP:
The only way Fred Goodwin could be any more unpopular is if his alleged affair had been with Nick Clegg.

It is just over 12 months ago that one man was touring the UK to address crowds of well-wishers, fans and even a few voters in the final stages of the General Election campaign. Buoyed by a strong performance in the leaders’ debates, Nick Clegg appeared to have been elevated to that much envied status of political pop star. How things have changed. After forming the coalition with the Conservatives, embracing deficit reduction plans and U-turning on tuition fees, he is now the object of opposition scorn where MPs compete to see who can be nastiest to prove their tribal credentials. And even those on the government’s side don’t seem to hold a high opinion:

Mr Clegg was mocked by both Tory and Labour MPs as he gave a statement in the Commons on the proposals, which will now be scrutinised by a committee of 13 peers and 13 MPs, with a report due early next year. (Discussing the launch of Lord’s reforms- The Daily Telegraph)

He seems to have gone from Palm Sunday adulation to Good Friday mockery in the course of 12 roller coaster months. But this post isn’t about feeling sorry for the Deputy Prime Minister, rather to learn the salutory lesson of human identity. If we base our identity, our value in the opinions of others, then we will be all over the place in our sense of worth. We will think we can change the world one minute, unable to change the sheets the next. We all make mistakes, we all break promises – it’s just that most of us don’t have them beamed up in the full glare of public opinion. Of course, it’s public opinion that got Nick Clegg where he was 12 months ago and if you can’t stand the heat… But our identity is rooted in the image of God implanted in each one of us and that, for all our foolishness, deceit and self-centredness the man who is God was stuck on a tree. This is our worth. This reclaims our identity if we respond to his act of self-sacrifice. It gives us the strength to cope with the fluctuations of praise and criticism, of respect and contempt.We may not have dog mess posted through our letterboxes but we have sharp-tongued exchanges designed to destroy rather then build-up. And it would be wise to know who we are when we face it.

This is a guest post by Chris Buttenshaw

Change to our electoral system may or may not be needed but change for the sake of it is certainly not the way forward.  On 5^th May, whilst we have an opportunity to change the shape of our democracy for us and for future generations, this referendum is also about politics.

AV is a system which nobody really wants, a political bargaining chip – the final squashed-looking sausage roll left on the plate at the electoral system buffet.  FPTP is not a perfect system and is not one for which I hold a great deal of affection; however, whatever the demerits of FPTP (and they are legion – here is a brief guide to both systems), the system more often than not produces strong government with a firm mandate to govern.  AV is a knee-jerk reaction, a symptom of a desire for change and a reaction to the current political climate, rather than a solution to the problem: a lack of proportional representation.

I am not arguing that maintaining the status quo is particularly desirable; rather, that it is preferable to playing fast and loose with our democracy by taking what Nick Clegg rightly called a ‘pigeon-step’ when we could be taking great strides – it is worth noting that no country has ever used AV as a stepping stone towards PR.  Democracy is something to be treasured, something to nurture, and something to jealously guard – it is simply too important to be trifled with by compromising with a system which will bring few tangible improvements, retain many of the old problems and create new ones.

AV may allow for parties other than the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats to have their voices heard, but it will do very little for those parties in terms of gaining seats, as votes for these parties tend to be spread thinly rather than concentrated.  What is more likely is that we would move from having a two party system to (perhaps) a two and a half party system.  This is not to say that AV necessarily creates more coalitions or less stable governments, but that it is a negligible improvement when so much more could be done.  The Jenkins Commission (which looked into possible reform of the United Kingdom electoral system and ultimately recommended an AV top-up system) rejected AV as a viable alternative to FPTP because it is not proportional (somewhat debunking the ‘yes to fairer votes’ cry – a very misleading slogan), could be “dangerously unpredictable”, and would be “unacceptably unfair” to the Conservatives.  Whatever you think of the Conservatives, our electoral system should be – in the true sense of word – fair.

I will be voting ‘No’ on Thursday with a modicum of regret, but also in the knowledge that there are fairer, more representative ways to elect a government to strive for.  If people are serious about a need to engage with political culture and are serious about a need for change to the electoral system, then we must also be serious about how we reform our electoral system; AV does not represent a departure from FPTP which is significant enough to merit my vote, does it merit yours?

So the referendum is almost upon us and it’s time to put an ‘X’ in a box. Could it be that next time we go to a national poll we place a ’1′ and possibly a ’2′, ’3′ against the options? This AV debate has lurched from the surreal (‘only 3 countries have it’) to exaggeration (‘it’ll do away with safe seats’) and wild inaccuracies (‘it will cost £250 million’) to tribal abuse (‘the death rattle of a right-wing clique’). It’s been hugely unedifying largely because both sides are desperate to capture some interest when the public are preoccupied with their household finances and the Royal Wedding. So here are my thoughts. I argued before the last general election that safe seats under first past the post (FPTP) are a travesty of democracy (I live in one). I’ve witnessed hustings in marginal seats where the outcome is uncertain and I’ve witnessed them in safe seats where everyone is going through the motions. I’ve even heard candidates from safe seats discuss how much time they spend campaigning in other marginals during the election period. I have never lived in a marginal seat and maybe I would get fed up with endless leaflets arriving at 6am for two months before an election. But I do believe it would be better if there were more seats with uncertain outcomes so that candidates really gave it everything they’d got. If they had to think not just about first preferences but second, third and fourth it might put them back into contact with people different to themselves. And they might adjust their views to widen their appeal and be more representative. I don’t buy the line that we will inevitably end up with more coalitions (just look at Canada under FPTP or Australia under AV) but even if we did this is about representing more people, more comprehensively and giving more electors a say in their MP. AV will not do away with safe seats but it will lead to fewer of them and more marginals. It will not lead to every MP working harder for your vote (many do their best already) but it will mean that many will listen to a wider cross-section of their constituents. And it won’t solve our cynicism of politicians at a stroke but it will get more of us involved in shaping the political culture. This is not about finding the fastest horse- it is about improving democracy. I’m hopeful of the possibilities that change could bring rather than fearful of it. So I’m putting a ‘X’ in the ‘YES’ box hoping that in future General elections I will be using ’1′ ’2′ ’3′.