Some correspondence below about resisting the liberal tide leads me to post re church attendance from a different perspective, partly because commenters have raised questions about what is going on in ACANZP re attendance, given that we do not publish our own church attendance figures (except in diocesan yearbooks which are not readily available outside dioceses).
One way to look at NZ statistics for Anglican church attendance is to ask, which are our large churches and why are they doing well?
It is a widely agreed fact that (a) our cathedrals do well re attendance, though generally more progressive in theology than conservative, but special factors come into play as all kinds of "civic, military, etc" services are held at cathedrals which local parishes do not hold; nevertheless most of our cathedrals are also 'parish' churches and have good congregations in their own right, (b) with one, maybe two exceptions, a dozen or so parishes with annual attendance around the 20000 mark (i.e. 400 per week) are all identifiable as working to the beat of a conservative theological beat (mostly evangelical (and most of those 'charismatic evangelical'), a few more catholic (or, if one wishes for great precision, 'catholic evangelical'),* and (c) in all seven NZ dioceses (i.e. 'Tikanga Pakeha'), the predominance among the largest parishes (c. 200-400+ p.w.) is strongly weighted, if not exclusively weighted to the conservative end of the theological spectrum.
Incidentally, my anecdotal understanding of the situation in the Diocese of Polynesia is that church attendance is going well. But, relative to the challenges in NZ, that is not surprising as the general cultural climate in Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa for church attendance is highly favourable. In Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa, church attendance figures, whether recorded faithfully or not, would need very careful discernment: low Sunday figures, for example, would tell nothing of a particular Maori emphasis in ministry on 'marae-based' ministry, especially for tangi (gatherings to mourn the dead over several days culminating with a funeral service). Nevertheless relevant facts are that (a) there are very few congregations sustaining stipendiary priests - aside from the five bishops, and several educators, most Maori clergy receiving a stipend are principally employed in a military or hospital or prison chaplaincy role, (b) Sunday congregational attendance (anecdotally) is very low.
It would take a lot to provide a definitive argument (say) that conservative theology produces, on average, the best church attendance. So I will not attempt that here. But I will offer this observation from my years of attendance at policy and planning meetings in our church: it is very rare to ever hear our leaders say that we ought to spend more time and effort researching what makes conservative parishes successful and even rarer to hear talk of either applying any such learning to the general life of our church, or embarking on a more active recruitment policy for conservative ministers and missioners for our church.
This observation can be turned to a question for ACANZP: do we wish to grow our Sunday attendance figures or not? If we do, then some things (maybe many things) can be done differently, with lessons learned from our larger churches waiting to be applied.** If we do not, will we ever have a conversation among ourselves when we admit to ourselves that we have no urgent commitment to pro-actively grow our attendance figures?
*Most of the vicars of the c. 400 parishes gather annually for a meeting of 'The Four Hundred Club'.
**That we might have lessons to learn from our larger parishes does not mean they have stumbled on some perfect formula for church growth. I am confident that the vicars of these parishes would readily admit to (a) having learned some difficult lessons through experience because no parish perfectly develops according to some theory of church growth, and (b) yet having much to learn. (One big challenge, incidentally, for these parishes and their bishops, is finding great successors)!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The oddness of atheism
The Christchurch Press makes its way up to Nelson overnight and arrives at our front entrance between 7 am and 7.30 am most mornings. Saturday's paper is the biggie of the week. A regular columnist is Martin Van Beynen. Last week he wrote a promotion in favour of atheism, against the rationality of the existence of God, and against religion in general as a waste of time.
Having received a few letters - perhaps quite a few letters because he can single out a few as written by people whose 'tone and gentle attempt at persuasion made me feel like a nasty mean atheist' - Van Beynen decides to have another go at God and religion! (Page C10 - no link yet)
You can probably guess the gist of the line he takes: science makes religion redundant and 'The science most destructive to religion is of course the theory of evolution.'
One challenge this line has to overcome is the phenomenon of ethical humanity. In his initial attempt to tackle this hurdle, Van Beynen cites a reviewer of Dawkins' The God Delusion to the effect that even virtues such as loyalty, charity and honesty can be explained by evolution.
Supposing this to be so (which I do not), another challenge is why we should respect each other, committing to the sacredness of life, rather than, as the occasion arises, 'getting rid of a few here and there so we can improve our chances of survival'?
A good question requires a good answer, but I find Van Beynen's answer quite odd, and very unconvincing. This is what he says:
"The answer is that such actions are wrong because they breach the very thing that makes us different [to other species]-our fundamental humanity. These are the common virtues which define us and which ensure our collective wellbeing. Our humanity is a code in itself and contains the resources we need to create better lives for ourselves and others without recourse to superstition and supernatural forces."
This is incredibly weak as an argument. Notions of 'fundamental humanity' and 'code' in this context imply an all-governing, inexorable moral force shaping our human destiny as strongly as the life force of evolution which drives us to mate with each other in ways which improve our DNA's chances of survival through improved fitness from generation to generation. But in fact we rebel against that force, often taking up the opportunity to get rid of a few here and there (actually, in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, two at least of whom count among the more famous atheists, many millions).
I think I shall stick with Genesis 1 as the key to the ethics of respect for human life,and Genesis 3 as the definitive account of why we rebel against the finest of virtues!
Having received a few letters - perhaps quite a few letters because he can single out a few as written by people whose 'tone and gentle attempt at persuasion made me feel like a nasty mean atheist' - Van Beynen decides to have another go at God and religion! (Page C10 - no link yet)
You can probably guess the gist of the line he takes: science makes religion redundant and 'The science most destructive to religion is of course the theory of evolution.'
One challenge this line has to overcome is the phenomenon of ethical humanity. In his initial attempt to tackle this hurdle, Van Beynen cites a reviewer of Dawkins' The God Delusion to the effect that even virtues such as loyalty, charity and honesty can be explained by evolution.
Supposing this to be so (which I do not), another challenge is why we should respect each other, committing to the sacredness of life, rather than, as the occasion arises, 'getting rid of a few here and there so we can improve our chances of survival'?
A good question requires a good answer, but I find Van Beynen's answer quite odd, and very unconvincing. This is what he says:
"The answer is that such actions are wrong because they breach the very thing that makes us different [to other species]-our fundamental humanity. These are the common virtues which define us and which ensure our collective wellbeing. Our humanity is a code in itself and contains the resources we need to create better lives for ourselves and others without recourse to superstition and supernatural forces."
This is incredibly weak as an argument. Notions of 'fundamental humanity' and 'code' in this context imply an all-governing, inexorable moral force shaping our human destiny as strongly as the life force of evolution which drives us to mate with each other in ways which improve our DNA's chances of survival through improved fitness from generation to generation. But in fact we rebel against that force, often taking up the opportunity to get rid of a few here and there (actually, in the case of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, two at least of whom count among the more famous atheists, many millions).
I think I shall stick with Genesis 1 as the key to the ethics of respect for human life,and Genesis 3 as the definitive account of why we rebel against the finest of virtues!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Unzipping the world with Plato and the gospel
I really appreciate the wisdom and insight of the site More than a via media (which has no named author but can be described as a post liberal Anglican living in Northern Ireland; I shall call him or her "MVM"). In a recent post MVM neatly skewers the critique of ++Rowan and +Wright by the Modern Churchpeople's Union:
"MCU declares that Anglicanism must be open to change:
"While holding fast to tradition is sometimes the right thing to do, at other times we are called to welcome new developments and insights".
So change, innovation is a good thing in the eyes of the MCU. Yes? Well, er, no.
The MCU encyclical takes aim at +Canterbury and +Durham for their support of the Anglican Covenant. But according to MCU, the ecclesiology of the Covenant is to be condemned as ... wait for it ... an innovation.
"It has never been a formal part of the Anglican Communion's governance ... To make the governance of the Anglican Communion fit this idea would ... be a major innovation".
"New developments and insights", it seems, are good and positive only when they accord with a revisionist agenda - communion for the unbaptised, lay presidency at the eucharist, the ordination of those in same-sex relationships. As for developments which serve Anglicanism's catholic and evangelical witness, they are to be rejected 'major innovations'."
But MVM's latest post makes a point I had not thought of but which corresponds with a lurking concern in my mind as I follow debates in the Communion: are we a Communion with a clear and confident sense of the transcendance of God, of God as Being able to break into our world with revelation, power, and judgement? MVM's point is that a lot of thinking about God presupposes the 'closed universe of the Enlightenment'. Although MVM's concern is how we go about evangelism, I think his observation also applies to much Anglican theology. The solution? According to MVM it is to rediscover Plato! I won't reproduce what he has to say ... please read it all for yourself!
Kind of changing the topic, but there is also an excellent post to read from John Richardson on the seemingly endless question "What is an evangelical?" I like the way he pushes the priority of evangelism to the forefront of the distinctive features of evangelicalism. I am sure Plato would approve :)
PS John Richardson's post on being evangelical is part of a series - read them all!
"MCU declares that Anglicanism must be open to change:
"While holding fast to tradition is sometimes the right thing to do, at other times we are called to welcome new developments and insights".
So change, innovation is a good thing in the eyes of the MCU. Yes? Well, er, no.
The MCU encyclical takes aim at +Canterbury and +Durham for their support of the Anglican Covenant. But according to MCU, the ecclesiology of the Covenant is to be condemned as ... wait for it ... an innovation.
"It has never been a formal part of the Anglican Communion's governance ... To make the governance of the Anglican Communion fit this idea would ... be a major innovation".
"New developments and insights", it seems, are good and positive only when they accord with a revisionist agenda - communion for the unbaptised, lay presidency at the eucharist, the ordination of those in same-sex relationships. As for developments which serve Anglicanism's catholic and evangelical witness, they are to be rejected 'major innovations'."
But MVM's latest post makes a point I had not thought of but which corresponds with a lurking concern in my mind as I follow debates in the Communion: are we a Communion with a clear and confident sense of the transcendance of God, of God as Being able to break into our world with revelation, power, and judgement? MVM's point is that a lot of thinking about God presupposes the 'closed universe of the Enlightenment'. Although MVM's concern is how we go about evangelism, I think his observation also applies to much Anglican theology. The solution? According to MVM it is to rediscover Plato! I won't reproduce what he has to say ... please read it all for yourself!
Kind of changing the topic, but there is also an excellent post to read from John Richardson on the seemingly endless question "What is an evangelical?" I like the way he pushes the priority of evangelism to the forefront of the distinctive features of evangelicalism. I am sure Plato would approve :)
PS John Richardson's post on being evangelical is part of a series - read them all!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Resisting the liberal tide in Anglicanism
In this blog I attempt to offer reflections as an evangelical seeking to uphold the catholicity of the Anglican Communion. I am conservative, but not so conservative that I am unchallenged by fellow conservatives, nor so open-minded as a conservative that I am unchallenged by liberal or progressive commenters. Sometimes conservatives are motivated by a desire to uphold the truth of the gospel (and care little for whether anyone is convinced or not). In my own case I hope I am motivated by a desire to uphold the truth of the gospel. It's just that I recognise so many competing claims, even within that narrow band of the universal church called the 'Anglican Communion', as to what the truth of the gospel consists of that I pay attention to what is persuasive of people. Popularity does not make something true, but it makes it worth thinking carefully about whether it might be true!
Consequently I am a bit of a numbers freak. OK, 'freak' sounds scary: 'very interested in numbers'. Are our churches growing or declining? If the former what is contributing and may be able to be replicated elsewhere? If the latter what might be changed, improved, or reformed?
I am particularly concerned that in the future there is an Anglican church to belong to, especially in these islands, rather than a history book which tells of the rise, decline and demise of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia. On the one hand not all conservative approaches to being Anglican are numerically fruitful, but some are! On the other hand there are signs that our numerical decline as a whole church must be connected with a liberal bias to the broad character of our theology (e.g. how come, while we are declining, conservative churches are growing?)
Long story short, one reason I attempt to resist (what I see as) a liberal tide in sectors of our church is that I want our church to survive, better, to flourish, rather than die.
For a snapshot of one Anglican church in the Communion which may not be successfully resisting the liberal tide, go here. NOTE ADDED LATER: One needs to read this article and the comments carefully. The statistics provided are a little confusing. What does not seem confusing, however, is that the linked article works from an alert in an editorial in the Anglican Journal which appears to have grave concerns about church attendance in Canada.
Consequently I am a bit of a numbers freak. OK, 'freak' sounds scary: 'very interested in numbers'. Are our churches growing or declining? If the former what is contributing and may be able to be replicated elsewhere? If the latter what might be changed, improved, or reformed?
I am particularly concerned that in the future there is an Anglican church to belong to, especially in these islands, rather than a history book which tells of the rise, decline and demise of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia. On the one hand not all conservative approaches to being Anglican are numerically fruitful, but some are! On the other hand there are signs that our numerical decline as a whole church must be connected with a liberal bias to the broad character of our theology (e.g. how come, while we are declining, conservative churches are growing?)
Long story short, one reason I attempt to resist (what I see as) a liberal tide in sectors of our church is that I want our church to survive, better, to flourish, rather than die.
For a snapshot of one Anglican church in the Communion which may not be successfully resisting the liberal tide, go here. NOTE ADDED LATER: One needs to read this article and the comments carefully. The statistics provided are a little confusing. What does not seem confusing, however, is that the linked article works from an alert in an editorial in the Anglican Journal which appears to have grave concerns about church attendance in Canada.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Being faithful
Back on the West Coast for training. This time focusing on worship leading. Many of last night's group were part of a Coast training group I inherited from Bob Barrett in 2001-02. I am always encouraged to find, over the course of time, that brothers and sisters in Christ have been faithful to Christ and the ministry to which he has called us!
A great storm howled through the night. The rains came down and, no doubt, somewhere in the rivers roundabout, the floods have come up. The house in which Mark and I are staying has stood firm. In the teaching of Jesus the foundation to faithfulness is the Word of God. In the storms around us of a spiritual kind, the church as the house of God can only remain firm where the Word of God is both taught and obeyed.
A great storm howled through the night. The rains came down and, no doubt, somewhere in the rivers roundabout, the floods have come up. The house in which Mark and I are staying has stood firm. In the teaching of Jesus the foundation to faithfulness is the Word of God. In the storms around us of a spiritual kind, the church as the house of God can only remain firm where the Word of God is both taught and obeyed.
Monday, August 24, 2009
An Anti-Nicene Father?
One way to source the writings of the church fathers is through the extensive series known as the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (ANCL). Fossicking around in such materials one might come across one of the Nicene Canons which says there should only be one bishop in each region. A commenter on this site has repeatedly made the accusation that my church, ACANZP, is in contravention of this ancient ecclesiology with the arrangements we have agreed to in the Diocese of Waikato which means there are two bishops there as 'full bishops' rather than one being diocesan and the other assistant or suffragan. Perhaps we do have an Anti-Nicene father in our midst! This article, published widely in NZ media certainly bears witness to (a) a proud ownership of a unique episcopal arrangement, and (b) a clear sense in which each bishop has his own cathedra since there will shortly be two cathedrals for the diocese.
My questions are fairly innocuous relative to the strong accusations made against ACANZP by the commenter:
(i) might the Taranaki region within the Diocese of Waikato one day become a separate diocese?
(ii) does the Archbishop of York who is coming to the dedication festivities for the new cathedral know he is walking into an ecclesiological minefield?
My questions are fairly innocuous relative to the strong accusations made against ACANZP by the commenter:
(i) might the Taranaki region within the Diocese of Waikato one day become a separate diocese?
(ii) does the Archbishop of York who is coming to the dedication festivities for the new cathedral know he is walking into an ecclesiological minefield?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Smack in the face does not cause pain
Sometimes I can get really annoyed by spin. One piece of spin is annoying today. Before telling you about it, let me explain, for overseas readers, a minor drama in the body politic of NZ. Until a year or three ago our criminal law code permitted the defence of reasonable force in respect of parental correction of children. Sadly some cases of correction which went to court let parents off the hook who used physical instruments such as a plastic pipe to beat their children. So pressure mounted to reform the law and one of our politicians called Sue Bradford led the charge and, with other politicians fearful of being branded 'supporters of violence', a change was passed which outlawed smacking as part of parental correction, though permitted reasonable force not applied for corrective purposes (e.g. to drag a child away from a fire, or a fight with a sibling). Along with the law change a clear message was given that police were encouraged to overlook 'light smacking' when reported to them and not proceed to charge parents.
The fact remains that, in the words of the law, smacking parents could become criminals. So pressure mounted the other way with a petition gathering sufficient signatures to force a (non-binding) referendum on the question, "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" In the run up to the referendum we had the usual suspects mounting the usual misinformation in a campaign to ask people to say 'yes' to the question. The misinformation, in my view, is the line that says smacking is 'hitting' children. This neat equation between one aspect of parental discipline, effective in many parents' experience, and the actions of abusive and violent criminals plays one category of life against another. It's intriguing in NZ, rugby mad that we are, that no politicians would dare to miscontrue tackling, rucking, and mauling, violent though these actions are, as criminal actions!
Last night the results of the referendum were announced. A stunning 87.6% of respondents (in a 54% turnout, very good by NZ voting standards) said "No". Smacking as part of parental correction should not be a criminal act. If ever there was a smack in the face for our politicians this is it. But do they feel the pain?
One politician in particular does not, Sue Bradford the leader of the charge to reform is impervious to this massive rejection of her reform. According to Stuff.co.nz,
'Ms Bradford said she had expected a majority "No" vote. She believed some people were so confused by the question they accidentally voted the wrong way. "Because the question is so flawed, the result is flawed. It's not a clear indicator to the Government of what it should do, if anything."
Other voters had told her they had scrawled abusive comments on their ballots instead of answering the question, which could have spoiled their votes, she said.
She accepted some people were still uncomfortable with the law, but said it should stand because "it's a law about protecting our most vulnerable citizens".'
This spin that the question was 'so flawed, the result is flawed' is particularly annoying. It implies that most NZer adults are stupid. (It's on a par with Democrat politicians in the States these days casting all opposition to Obamacare as the result of either extreme right-wingers or people susceptible to the lies of extreme right-wingers. Duh.)
We are not stupid. We know when the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Living Down Under we still understand what is the Right Way Up! Not to worry, as we say here, this smack in the face has nevertheless caused no pain to Sue Bradford!
Why mention this on Anglican Down Under? Well there is the slightly embarrassing fact that church leaders (including our archbishops) encouraged people to vote 'Yes'. 11.8% respondents agreed with them. I wonder what they are thinking now? In the case of ACANZP, my humble suggestion is that we reflect on whether we might have polled a wider range of Anglicans before committing our church to the line taken by our archbishops. Whichever way one does the maths on 87.6% saying "No", it is significantly bigger than the percentage of Christians in NZ who are conservative, at least in the sense that they read the Bible as supportive of physical correction of children (about 5% of the general population, in my estimate), and it will have included a significant number of Christians who failed to heed the lead of their leaders. This will have included many Anglicans who are not confused about the value of smacking as part of parental discipline yet who are just as committed to ending criminal abuse of children in NZ as church leaders are.
Postscript: an excellent series of points is made by David Farrar of Kiwiblog in this post, an excerpt reproduced below (italics mine):
"[Prime Minister John Key's] own view was that the law was “working as it is now”.
But on Monday, he would take to the Cabinet “options which fall short of changing the law but will provide comfort for parents about this issue”.
There will be a lot of interest in these. However I believe that the law should be changed. The reason is quite simple.
The criminal code is there to reflect the views of the public on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. And almost every provision in the criminal code would have 99% of adult New Zealanders say this should be a criminal offence. 99% say it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to rape, it is wrong to beat someone senseless, it is wrong to steal etc etc.
But here we have 88% of adult New Zealanders (who voted) saying this should not be a criminal offence. If Parliament does not heed the views of voters on this issue, then we have an awful precedent where Parliament is sits as rulers rather than servants of the people, imposing their private criminal code, rather than society’s.
I’m not an advocate that Parliament in every circumstance should do what public opinion wants. The referendum on the number of firefighters was a classic case. Economic issues can be similiar as the public can vote for cutting taxes and increasing spending without the responsibility of having to balance the budget.
But when it comes to our criminal code, I find it hard to offer up a reason why Parliament would insist on criminalising something that not only lacks majority support for being a criminal act, but in fact has massive and sustained opposition.
The public understand this issue. Hell, it has been debated for two to three years. They know exactly what they voted for. The percentage who spoilt their ballot papers was a miniscule 0.3%.
There is a simple solution to all of this. The Borrows/Boscawen amendment/bill. It will in fact provide greater protection to children (as it significantly lowers the level of acceptable force for non-correctional situations) but remove the insulting differentiation between smacking for preventing disruption and for correction."
The fact remains that, in the words of the law, smacking parents could become criminals. So pressure mounted the other way with a petition gathering sufficient signatures to force a (non-binding) referendum on the question, "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" In the run up to the referendum we had the usual suspects mounting the usual misinformation in a campaign to ask people to say 'yes' to the question. The misinformation, in my view, is the line that says smacking is 'hitting' children. This neat equation between one aspect of parental discipline, effective in many parents' experience, and the actions of abusive and violent criminals plays one category of life against another. It's intriguing in NZ, rugby mad that we are, that no politicians would dare to miscontrue tackling, rucking, and mauling, violent though these actions are, as criminal actions!
Last night the results of the referendum were announced. A stunning 87.6% of respondents (in a 54% turnout, very good by NZ voting standards) said "No". Smacking as part of parental correction should not be a criminal act. If ever there was a smack in the face for our politicians this is it. But do they feel the pain?
One politician in particular does not, Sue Bradford the leader of the charge to reform is impervious to this massive rejection of her reform. According to Stuff.co.nz,
'Ms Bradford said she had expected a majority "No" vote. She believed some people were so confused by the question they accidentally voted the wrong way. "Because the question is so flawed, the result is flawed. It's not a clear indicator to the Government of what it should do, if anything."
Other voters had told her they had scrawled abusive comments on their ballots instead of answering the question, which could have spoiled their votes, she said.
She accepted some people were still uncomfortable with the law, but said it should stand because "it's a law about protecting our most vulnerable citizens".'
This spin that the question was 'so flawed, the result is flawed' is particularly annoying. It implies that most NZer adults are stupid. (It's on a par with Democrat politicians in the States these days casting all opposition to Obamacare as the result of either extreme right-wingers or people susceptible to the lies of extreme right-wingers. Duh.)
We are not stupid. We know when the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Living Down Under we still understand what is the Right Way Up! Not to worry, as we say here, this smack in the face has nevertheless caused no pain to Sue Bradford!
Why mention this on Anglican Down Under? Well there is the slightly embarrassing fact that church leaders (including our archbishops) encouraged people to vote 'Yes'. 11.8% respondents agreed with them. I wonder what they are thinking now? In the case of ACANZP, my humble suggestion is that we reflect on whether we might have polled a wider range of Anglicans before committing our church to the line taken by our archbishops. Whichever way one does the maths on 87.6% saying "No", it is significantly bigger than the percentage of Christians in NZ who are conservative, at least in the sense that they read the Bible as supportive of physical correction of children (about 5% of the general population, in my estimate), and it will have included a significant number of Christians who failed to heed the lead of their leaders. This will have included many Anglicans who are not confused about the value of smacking as part of parental discipline yet who are just as committed to ending criminal abuse of children in NZ as church leaders are.
Postscript: an excellent series of points is made by David Farrar of Kiwiblog in this post, an excerpt reproduced below (italics mine):
"[Prime Minister John Key's] own view was that the law was “working as it is now”.
But on Monday, he would take to the Cabinet “options which fall short of changing the law but will provide comfort for parents about this issue”.
There will be a lot of interest in these. However I believe that the law should be changed. The reason is quite simple.
The criminal code is there to reflect the views of the public on what is and is not acceptable behaviour. And almost every provision in the criminal code would have 99% of adult New Zealanders say this should be a criminal offence. 99% say it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to rape, it is wrong to beat someone senseless, it is wrong to steal etc etc.
But here we have 88% of adult New Zealanders (who voted) saying this should not be a criminal offence. If Parliament does not heed the views of voters on this issue, then we have an awful precedent where Parliament is sits as rulers rather than servants of the people, imposing their private criminal code, rather than society’s.
I’m not an advocate that Parliament in every circumstance should do what public opinion wants. The referendum on the number of firefighters was a classic case. Economic issues can be similiar as the public can vote for cutting taxes and increasing spending without the responsibility of having to balance the budget.
But when it comes to our criminal code, I find it hard to offer up a reason why Parliament would insist on criminalising something that not only lacks majority support for being a criminal act, but in fact has massive and sustained opposition.
The public understand this issue. Hell, it has been debated for two to three years. They know exactly what they voted for. The percentage who spoilt their ballot papers was a miniscule 0.3%.
There is a simple solution to all of this. The Borrows/Boscawen amendment/bill. It will in fact provide greater protection to children (as it significantly lowers the level of acceptable force for non-correctional situations) but remove the insulting differentiation between smacking for preventing disruption and for correction."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)