I received an email highlighting a video on youtube of Gianna Jessen who survived an abortion. Her story and advocacy of the rights of the unborn is compelling. More from Wikipedia or Gianna's official site.


Part One


Part Two

Philippa Stroud is the Executive Director of the UK's Centre for Social Justice. She spent seventeen years in poverty-fighting projects and published a book on social injustice before her involvement in the CSJ. From 1987 to 1989 Philippa worked in Hong Kong and Macau among the addict community. From 1989 to 1996 she pioneered a four-stage residential support project in Bedford enabling homeless people to move off the streets and to become contributing members of the community. From 2001 to 2003 Philippa developed a project to care for the homeless, addicts, and those in debt in Birmingham. In 2003 she became a founder of the Centre for Social Justice. In 2005 Philippa became the Director of the Conservative Party’s Social Justice Policy Group focusing on rethinking the Party’s approach to the family, education, addiction, debt, and employment.

Philippa has been selected as the Conservative's candidate for Sutton and Cheam to be the Member of Parliament at the next election. You can see her campaign page, or join her Facebook group.

I have been fortunate enough to know Phillipa for a few years. She is in my wider circle of aquaintances. But recently I was able to sit down with her and ask her about her work in the political arena. I hope you enjoy watching this video as much as I enjoyed recording it.

In a typically clumsy political maneuver by Gordon Brown, he has had to retract his endorsement of US presidential candidate Barack Obama. UK prime ministers are usually extremely careful to remain neutral in American politics. Blair, for example, was possibly the only person in the world (other than perhaps Billy Graham) who was able to be a close personal and professional friend of both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

The Times report suggests that Brown was forced to make his climb down by the McCain camp. I wonder, however, if the man who famously decided he was giving bad luck to English sporting teams and started to stay away from international matches was possibly told in no uncertain terms by the Obama camp that they did not need his support or want it! I can't help but wonder if the man has a "reverse Midas touch" where everything he touches does not turn to gold, but to disaster instead. If that's true, I guess Brown's support for Obama is good news for John McCain!

I was glad to receive this e-mail from a regular reader who disagrees with some of what I said recently about abortion and Gordon Brown's position.

Dear Adrian,

As a regular reader of your blog, I am pleased that you are highlighting the issue of abortion. You may also be interested in this video of Peter Saunders.

However, I disagree with you about whether this should be party political issues.

You said — "This is based on the fundamental principle that the people of the UK do not elect parties, they elect individuals to serve them, and on moral questions those representatives are best placed to make those judgment calls."

I would like to see political parties taking a stance [on] abortion like in America. Without this, I don't see much [chance] of dramatically changing the law on abortion.

I think the USA can make a better claim to saying that they elect individuals rather than parties.

In the United States, I think people [can] exercise greater choice over who there (sic) elected representatives are. For example, in the Florida presidential primaries held this year, about 1.89 million people voted for Republican candidates, and about 1.67 million people voted for Democratic candidates—meaning over 3,570,128 people voted in a PRIMARY election [1], out of a population of 18.25 million [2] — around 20% of the total population — the population eligible to vote would be smaller.

In contrast, when David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative Party, he got just 134,446 votes. [3] Mike Huckabee came 4th in the Florida primary, but got roughly double the number of votes in Florida alone that David Cameron got in total in his leadership election. [1]

In terms of selection for parliamentary seats — primaries for the US Congress can get [a] turnout of around 10% or 20%. [4, 5] In contrast, MPs have been selected as the candidate for safe Conservative seats with just 0.3% Conservative voters voting for them. [6]

In summary, I think the general US population has far greater say in who the candidates of the main parties are. People don't just vote between the two or three people with a chance of winning the election.

I believe that elections in the UK are more based on party (as opposed to individual) than they are in the USA — after all, the leader of the biggest party in the UK is the prime minister, without necessarily having been elected to that office himself (e.g. Gordon Brown now and John Major until 1992).

US primaries mean that voters get a say in the position of the candidates at election. For example, even though the Republican Party campaigns on a pro-life party platform, [7] Republican primary voters had the choice to select a range of presidential candidates, from the strongly pro-life Mike Huckabee to the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani. I believe that Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice views [8] contributed to his failure to win the Republican nomination, and has ensured that the Republican candidate is relatively more pro-life than the Democratic candidate.

If we had a better "primary" system in Britain, then there [would be] a better chance that candidates for a political party would reflect the views of the party grassroots. This means pro-life Conservatives could have a better chance of ensuring that the Conservative candidate was pro-life — as I think happens to some extent with the Republican party in the USA.

Currently, however, we have to vote for the better party, and no party is clearly better on abortion. I want the parties to take a clear stance [on] the issue of abortion so that I can vote for the party that I agree with. The Labour government is introducing damaging legislation (from a pro-life perspective), but consistently seems to argue that this should not lose them votes. In 2005, after Michael Howard expressed personal support for lowering the abortion limit to 20 weeks, Tony Blair appeared to argue that if you are pro-life, then there shouldn't be a way for this to affect your vote — arguing that abortion should not be an election issue. [9]

It could be argued that given low turnout at candidate selection election in the UK, there is more chance for a small group of party members to influence a parties (sic) position on a particular issue. However, there are also concerns about how democratic selection of MEP candidates for the Conservative Party is — where the candidates do not necessarily represent the views of party supporters (e.g. on attitudes on the EU).[10]

A vote for the Conservative Party may be marginally better than a vote for Labour on pro-life issues — as some senior Tory MP support more restrictions on abortion.[11] However, a vote for the Conservative Party is not a vote for a pro-life party. There seems to be little chance of any government (including a Conservative one) ending abortion soon.

If the Conservatives (or another party) took a pro-life stance, there would be a clear electoral way to change the law on abortion. Currently I don't know know how I could vote to end abortion unless I happen to be in a constituency with a strongly pro-life candidate.

In contrast, a vote for John McCain in America could realistically result in appointments to the Supreme Court that would result in Roe vs Wade being overturned. [12] This would not end abortion in America, but it would be real progress.

Best wishes,
Ben

References

[1] Voting Figures for Florida Primaries
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#FL

[2] Population Figures for Florida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida

[3] David Cameron's Election as Conservative Party Leader
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4502652.stm

[4] 2000 Virginia Congressional Primary
http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/web_docs/election/results/2000/jun_primary/pj00_dis_turnout.html

[5] New Orleans Primaries for U.S. House of Representatives
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/congressional_primary_saturday.html

[6] Selection of Conservative Candidate for Cambridgeshire North East
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2008/01/cambridgeshire.html

[7] Republic Party Advertising Their Pro-Life Positions
http://faithandvalues.gop.com/GroupPage.aspx?

[8] Justin Taylor on Concern From Pro-Life Christians About the Chances of Rudy Giuliani Being the Republican Presidential Nominee
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/10/guiliani-vs-clinton-what-should-pro.html

[9] Tony Blair on Voting About Abortion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4349581.stm

[10] Complaints About the Conservative Party MEP Selection Process
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2008/04/the-story-of-ho.html

[11] Senior Tories Promise to Vote for Lower Abortion Limit
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/05/senior-tories-p.html

[12] Justin Taylor Notes That Voting for John McCain is the Best Hope of Limiting Abortion
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/02/dobson-on-mccain.html

Earlier this week, I posted on Gordon Brown's antagonism towards pro-lifers. I thought I would remind us of the opportunity that exists for us to do something about the forthcoming law if we live in the UK. There have been 6.7 million abortions since 1967 in the UK.


Here are some things you can do if you live in the UK.

1. PRAY, that God will work a miracle in the House. Emotions run high at the moment in Westminster so anything is possible. Well, actually even our non-British readers can do this for us!

2. FIND OUT MORE about the issues. The following websites are worth visiting

• Alive and Kicking 
  
• Christian Medical Fellowship
• SPUC
• Passion for Life
• Parliamentary Pro-Life Group
• BBC on Abortion Debate.
• Netdoctor page on Abortion in the UK.

I also preached on the subject of murder and how abortion is simply that a few weeks back.  I also speak of the forgiveness that is available for any who have actually had an abortion themselves.

3. LOOK UP YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT'S VOTING RECORD.

4. WRITE TO YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT I attach the letter I wrote to my MP. If I get a reply I will share it here. Please do not simply copy and paste my letter, but feel free to use it as a basis to adapt.

Dear MP,

May I begin by thanking your for what I understand has been your voting record in the matter of abortion. As a medical doctor I have been in lectures where it has been openly stated that "every pregnancy is bad for a mothers health" and so therefore they see it is ok to offer social abortions "on demand". I do not believe that was the intention of the original abortion law. I would therefore ask you that with regard to the forthcoming Embryo bill, you would consider

Voting against the creation of animal/human hybrid embryos. Such a move is not medically necessary as adult stem cell research is productive and it is already possible to create cells that express single human proteins.

Voting against offering permission for IVF doctors to create "saviour siblings" chosen specifically to provide donor tissue to their sick older brother or sister. This devalues the lives of the embryos discarded.

Voting against the removal of the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the need for a father figure when deciding whether to offer treatment. Insufficient work has been done on the psychological impact of being raised without a father figure at least peripherally present in a child's life. We should not be further undermining the family in this way.

Voting against the removal of the requirement that doctors sign a form stating that an abortion is in the interest of a woman’s health. This requirement should instead by enforced and specific criteria to limit abortion to its original intent should be enacted. In the absence of a total ban on abortion I am in favor of any effort to remedy the current situation where it is available to anyone irrespective of their circumstances.

Voting in favor of the reduction to the term limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20, saving 2,948 of the 193,000 lives taken by abortion each year in the UK.

I would be happy to speak with you further about any of these issues, and wish you success in your efforts to represent this area.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Adrian Warnock
http://adrianwarnock.com

5. WRITE TO THE PRIME MINISTER Here is what I wrote, but again please adapt this letter to make it personal.

Dear Mr Brown,

I am writing to express my anger and disappointment that you would overturn the tradition that matters of morality are not appropriate for the use of the Whip. I know you have allowed your MPs a free vote on certain amendments of the forthcoming Embryo legislation. I urge you to stop your vocal support of the whole law which is I believe immoral and allow your party the freedom to vote with their conscience. I also urge you to allow more time for the important debates on this matter.

Yours

Adrian Warnock
http://adrianwarnock.com

6.  Sign a petition at the Alive and Kicking website or at Number 10 where the following are open

• Childs right to a father
  
• End Abortion.

Okay—political post warning. For those who think Christians should not engage in the political process or write political commentary, I suppose you’d better pass on by. But equally for those looking for an unequivocal statement of support for a particular party or leader, again pass on by.

I think it’s important that we have opinions on political matters. And while I don’t often write about politics here on my blog, I have done so occasionally. For example, last December I expressed my strong concerns about the leadership ability of Gordon Brown, who is our current prime minister. Since then, even a member of his own party has claimed that Brown was put on earth to remind us all of how good Tony Blair was. There have also been no fewer than three sets of memoirs published that haven’t exactly portrayed him very well, and there have been a string of mistakes he has made which have been well catalogued in the British media.

What I want to highlight today is a serious blow to the very heart of our political system. It has always been the case that on matters of conscience, such as morality, our political parties do not have official policy. There is an unwritten agreement that members of Parliament and the Lords will always be given a free vote on such matters as abortion and embryo experimentation. This is based on the fundamental principle that the people of the UK do not elect parties, they elect individuals to serve them, and on moral questions those representatives are best placed to make those judgment calls. This has had a number of effects. It has not meant that we necessarily have more moral laws. What it does mean is that, unlike the U.S., where it seems such things are decided by unelected lawyers in the Supreme Court, if we want the law changed all we have to do is elect the right people.

Since the right people in the UK do not necessarily belong to particular political parties, it has also had the result that Christians are far less wedded to the Conservative party than their counterparts in the U.S. are to the Republicans. In fact, many Christians would have voted for Tony Blair, who was known as a man of some faith (which is perhaps relatively unusual in our politicians). Many Christians in the UK are, however, still rather detached from the political system, which is arguably as much a bad thing as being overly embroiled in it.

Gordon Brown risks awakening a sleeping bear in our nation for he has turned the status quo on its head. Despite howls of protest, even from some of his cabinet members (some of whom are Catholic), he is making a certain bill before the house currently into what is called a “whipped” bill for members of his party. The other parties are still allowing freedom of conscience.

Brown initially stated that his party would be forced to vote in favor of every provision in the act. Now, in true Brown style, he has climbed down, but only in a meaningless partial and tokenistic way. His members will be allowed to vote with their conscience on individual portions of the bill, but then if the portions are passed, when the bill as a whole comes before them they will be forced to vote in favor irrespective of their religious or ethical convictions. He is also being criticized for placing very short time limits on the debates over these vital issues.

This all sets a dangerous precedent, and is very worrying to Christians, especially considering the provisions being considered, which are as follows:

• The creation of animal/human hybrid embryos.
  
  
• Permission for IVF doctors to create "saviour siblings" chosen specifically to provide donor tissue to their sick older brother or sister.
  
  
• Removal of the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the need for a father figure when deciding whether to offer treatment.
  
  
• Removal of the requirement that doctors sign a form stating that an abortion is in the interest of a woman’s health.
  
  
• Reduction to the term limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20, saving 2,948 of the 193,000 lives taken by abortion each year in the UK.

Please pray that there will be a miraculous turnaround and that somehow we might be delivered from these things becoming law (except perhaps the last one, which is, of course, a step in the right direction).

This is not really a political blog. And I am not a campaigner for any one political party. Nor have I ever even been a member of a party. Nothing in this post should be taken as a personal endorsement of any candidate or even as a suggestion that I have already cast my own vote. As of yet, I don't know that much about Alan Craig myself. I just want to give you this opportunity to hear more about a Christian who is standing for office and clearly not getting as much media coverage as Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson.

Over the last few days I received, via e-mail, the following two press releases, which I thought I would share with you in their entirety. Before I do, let me say a couple of things myself about the forthcoming London mayoral elections. For my American readers, some useful background for you is that in the UK very rarely will an openly professing Christian stand for any political office as it is considered a handicap by all our main parties.

When thinking about the fact that there is a Christian standing for London mayor and deciding whether to vote for him, it is worth considering two little-known facts. First, if every churchgoer in London were to actually vote and they all used their first preference vote for Alan Craig, then he would easily become mayor. Second, if even just a small percentage of Christians voted for him as the first choice, then put one of the main party candidates second, he would definitely serve on the London Assembly.

The election will be decided by a simple process as I understand it. The top two candidates from the first preference votes will go into a run-off where the second preference votes are added to the first preference ones to decide who will be mayor. Thus, one should always vote for one of the smaller candidates first if you support them, and want both your preferences to be counted as, contrary to popular understanding, a second preference vote for a less popular candidate is wasted.

Here is the text of both press releases, with the newest one first:


Election Broadcast by the Christian Peoples Alliance and Christian Party
On Wednesday 23rd April 2008 television viewers in London will have the chance to see a Christian vision of London for the GLA Elections.

6.25 pm ITV
6.55 pm BBC1
It will also be available on the BBCi-player and broadcast on BBC Radio.

A preview will be published from 11.55 pm Monday 21st April on the Christian Choice website:

http://www.thechristianchoice.org.uk/
A speech by Alan Craig on the importance of marriage made at the Kensington Temple Hustings is now available on YouTube at:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kxNKeWMiI6c

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



For Immediate Release: Sunday 20th April 2008

Christian Leaders Announce Backing for Alan Craig's London Election Campaign
Christian leaders are urging London voters to back Alan Craig of the Christian Choice in his campaign for mayor and the London Assembly. The group comes from a range of church backgrounds—Anglican, Roman Catholic, the Black Majority Churches, and the Free Church—and say Alan Craig is the outstanding candidate to run the capital. Councillor Craig also tops the London List of Assembly candidates for the Christian Choice, and needs just 5% to qualify for a seat.

Human rights campaigner and a Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords, Baroness Cox of Queensbury said:

“Among all the candidates running for London Mayor, Alan Craig stands out above the crowd. He has shown leadership in industry and for years he's been devoted to bringing change to the inner-city through serving the community in London's East End.

But it is his Christian qualities which make him distinctive—brave in facing-up to political correctness, standing by ordinary Londoners and confronting issues like the threatened Mega Mosque, which other politicians won't touch. London won't do better than to choose Alan for mayor.”

Mgr John Armitage, Vicar General of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brentwood, praised Alan Craig for his years of service in London's East End:

“He is a committed Christian, a man of integrity who has a passion for the common good. His service of the people in one of the most socially deprived areas in the country has given hope and encouragement to many people. He has a true desire to serve and help to build strong local communities in London.”

Prominent leader in the Evangelical Alliance and founder of Icthus Christian Fellowship, Roger Forster, said:

“A vote for Alan Craig of The Christian Choice can put the name of Christ officially onto the Greater London Authority, which after so many years must be a good thing. I have every confidence concerning the Christian commitment, integrity and intelligence of Alan.”

Dr Sola Fola Alade leads the Trinity Chapel congregation of major black church, RCCG. He wrote:

“Alan is an honourable and compassionate Christian man. I know him to be a visionary leader who is not afraid to stand for justice and truth. He has shown himself to be a selfless leader, one who has now become a voice of the voiceless and a defender of the helpless. Though a Christian, he is one who reaches out to people regardless of class, colour, or creed.”

Rev Lyndon Bowring, Executive Chairman of campaign group CARE, said:

“Alan Craig is an outstanding Christian leader and a man of the people. London and the GLA needs him and I wholeheartedly commend him to you in the forthcoming mayoral and GLA elections.”

Writing in Christianity Magazine, Premier Christian Radio broadcaster and Chief Executive, Peter Kerridge, wrote:

“Personally, I hope Alan Craig gets onto the London Assembly where I believe his influence would make a positive difference.”

Former London mayoral candidate for the Christian Peoples Alliance, Ram Gidoomal CBE, praised Alan Craig's business credentials:

“London deserves better than simply a politician for mayor. That's why Alan Craig is so different—he walks the talk—spending years in sacrificial service in one of London's most deprived communities. But unlike other mayoral candidates, he comes with significant business experience. He understands that to stay ahead, the capital has to stay competitive, have a high quality of life for all its citizens, and be the British engine-room of innovation and investment. He makes a formidable candidate.”

Christian author, speaker, writer, and founder of Pioneer, Gerald Coates, concluded:

“Alan Craig is just what we need and is suitably equipped to be Mayor of London. He was a successful senior businessman, has more recently worked among the deprived and vulnerable, and is a politician with considerable experience and expertise.”

Colin Dye of Kensington Temple and J. John of the Philo Trust are also backing the campaign.

The Christian Choice is the united electoral option of the Christian Peoples Alliance and Christian Party. It is committed to serving all Londoners regardless of race, faith or background.

For more information:
E-mail: press@cpaparty.org.uk
Telephone: 07873 625396
View: http://www.thechristianchoice.org/?page=endorsements

Promoted and published by P Vickers, The Christian Choice, 85 Tarling Road, London E16.

The following video is the one referred to in the first press release above:

I am not an American. I don't like to interfere with American politics. This post should certainly not be construed as any kind of endorsement or rejection of any particular candidate for President of the United States. Last time I checked, only Americans have the responsibility of selecting the leader of the free world! I do appreciate, however, the strength of feelings on all sides that Obama, and more recently the comments by his ex-pastor, have ignited. You should not try and read into this post a position on Obama's policies, although you would not be surprised to learn that, as a conservative Christian, I obviously have serious concerns about some ethical issues.

I think that in assessing political happenings, it is interesting to look at candidates as emerging leaders and examine what works or does not work in their attempts to persuade the electorate to suspend its usual cynicism and believe in their abilities to deliver on their rhetoric. So I am interested in trying for a moment to put aside some of the political issues and look at this speech as an example of someone attempting to assert leadership in the face of a stormy challenge. Is it a good example? Will it "work," at least in some sense? Is it inevitable that this subject will arouse more heat than light? The strength of the reactions I have read online today on both sides of the fence might suggest that is the case. But I wonder what the political feel will be like once the reactions have had time to settle down. Again, don't expect me to pin my colors to the mast in answering those questions decisively. I don't know enough about the American scene to give such clear answers. Think instead of this post as throwing a few half-formed ideas of my own out there, and also reflecting and linking to some other material on this that I have found online. It is more a brainstorming exercise designed to make YOU think about this issue for yourself. I am asking the questions more than giving the answers.

As I hinted earlier, I enjoy following the political scene, not so much from a purely political perspective, but rather from being a student of leadership wherever it is found. I think that the concept of leadership is something very important to study, and about which we should learn all we can. In many ways politics has two sides—policy (which these days often reveals few significant differences between candidates) and leadership. I am much more interested in the latter. So, for example, even in my most politicized post yet—when I was strongly critical of Prime Minister Gordon Brown—in my mind, it was less about his policies and more about his leadership style.

It is impossible, of course, to completely separate leadership style from the impression we form of a candidate or leader from the media's coverage of him. I am a great believer however, in trying to base one's judgment of a leader on what he himself says. As a result, I couldn't help sharing this video here for any of my readers in America and elsewhere who have not already seen it. I am particularly interested in the comments of American Christians on what is found in this full-length address given in direct response to the controversy over Obama's ex-pastor.

I won't say much about Obama's speech myself, except to state some initial reactions. In the video we see a man fighting for his political life. This is surely the most important speech of Obama's life. He could easily have sounded evasive or defensive. Instead, he faces the issue head on and uses it as an opportunity to express his views about how to tackle the racial divides. He seems to me to be trying to strike a calm note, and even at one point attempts to direct the whole nation in how it should think about the current election campaign. Whatever you might think about his politics, it is certainly interesting to consider this speech and come to your own conclusion about whether it succeeds in the goal Obama clearly had for it. People will come to very different conclusions, I'm sure. Some loved it. Some hated it. This is surely because in some sense Obama has been identified as part of unfinished business in the minds of many Americans. As Shelby Steele put it in an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Obama Bargain":

"For many Americans—black and white—Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny."

The BBC has a comment piece that applauds the speech as nuanced and subtle and as truly great. But then they add to the following quote an honest confession that they simply do not know what it will do for Obama's votes:

"Barack Obama has probably given one of the best speeches of the campaign, genuinely reaching out to resentful whites and blacks, dousing the usual allegorical and oblique debate about race in a huge dose of honesty.

It was a great speech. A black and a white colleague both called it the best speech on race since Martin Luther King spoke about his dream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. That's one hell of a compliment.

But there is a difference. King had a dream. Obama also has an election to win.

And yet, this was the only speech he could have given. As someone of mixed race, he was the only candidate who could have given it with any integrity. I have swum in those waters, as he likes to say."

On the side of Obama supporters in the media and online, many have hailed his racism speech as the one that will give him the keys to the White House once all the dust has settled. The Washington Post described it in the following headline: "Invited to Wrestle in a Racial Mud Pit, Obama Soars Above It". In addition, The Dallas News seemed similarly impressed saying:

"For months, the matter of race has hovered like an unwanted guest at the edges of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday was organized amid controversy over several comments by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. On Tuesday, he put the subject squarely in the middle of the room.

Facing a firestorm over his pastor's remarks about race in America, Mr. Obama took a bold step—rather than play down the conflict, he embraced it. In a 37-minute speech that pulled no punches about attitudes among both blacks and whites, he challenged the country to have a serious dialogue about race."

On the other hand some conservatives have responded very strongly to the current situation. Dan Phillips is a notable example, although he does not mention the video of Obama's speech. Joe Carter over at The Evangelical Outpost also reports his rejection of Obama's association with a certain form of black theology and is highly critical of him as a politician. He has read the speech, although his second post doesn't interact with it, but instead criticizes the whole notion of speechwriters.

Justin Taylor shares the YouTube video of the original video of Wright's comments, but also has called the speech the best he could imagine in the circumstances, while still expressing significant concerns about Obama. He also pointed us to John McWorter's response.

McWorter claims to have understood Obama's speech from the perspective of the black community. The argument could be made that it is understandable that a young man of mixed race would join a strongly black church in order to cement his own understanding of his heritage. The real story to McWorter is that Obama was incredibly bold to stand up to his ex-pastor and proclaim that his view of race was just plain wrong. Although the wrongness of Wright might seem obvious to almost all whites, it is far from obvious to many blacks who feel anger and resentment about past and current injustices. As McWorter puts it:

"It must be understood what a maverick statement this is from a 40-something black politician. In the black community one does not sass one's elders. One is expected to show a particular deference, understandably, to the generation who fought on the barricades of the Civil Rights movement. That is, to people of Jeremiah Wright's vintage."

McWorter goes on to argue that Obama cleverly softens what could be considered a real blow to the black community.

I would add that to me the cleverest part of the whole speech is where he also softens the blow that directly speaking about racial advantage is to whites. To acknowledge clearly that there is a whole segment of white society who have not in any sense benefited from the historical and current advantages enjoyed by some blacks was surely an example of good leadership skill.

Erika Anderson's article is a good example in contrast of the disbelief many feel that Obama could continue in a church led by Wright for twenty years. Thomas Sowell believes the speech raised more questions than it answered.

Meanwhile, Jake from Charlotte argues that the original trigger for all the furor that led to this speech has a bigger problem than a few sound bites cherry-picked for the media. He writes:

". . . the real problem with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is one that, sadly, has historically been systemic in the black church. The problem is that he's a political crusader masquerading as a minister of the Gospel. . . . What you'll find noticeably lacking in any of Wright's pulpit rants is any real exposition of the Bible. Even more noticeably lacking is even a passing reference to the salvation found in Christ. No reference to sin (except, of course, that of white America) and grace. In short, no Gospel. That, not his detached-from-reality political views, is the real problem."

That perspective is remarkably similar to that given by Rick Phillips over at Reformation21, who argues:

"When I first saw the YouTube excerpts of Wright's preaching, my first thought was not, "He hates America!" or "He's a racist!" but "What a terrible use of God's pulpit!" I feel exactly the same outrage whenever I see a candidate standing behind a pulpit—Democrat or Republican. I feel exactly the same outrage whenever I see a preacher extolling the virtues (or vices) of a particular candidate—Democrat or Republican. Surely the church pulpit is intended for higher and better matters than the small concerns of national politics! The pulpit is not an institution of the republic, but of the Kingdom, and its only legitimate use is the preaching of King Jesus. Politics should be kept out of the pulpit, not merely for reasons of church-state separation, but because the pulpit is for matters of such greater significance."

You might not agree with any of the above perspectives on this speech and the circumstances which led to it, of course. It seems that Obama is one of those politicians everyone has an opinion about.

As I have said before, listening to this speech is, if nothing else, an interesting exercise in studying leadership. In the internet age, we can all go back to the original sources and make our own assessment of them. The full text is available on Obama's campaign website. Here is an extract, followed by the video itself:

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle—as we did in the OJ trial—or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina—or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day, and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together."

The UK EA has freely released some legal framework documents that may be of particular interest to you if your church is in Britain and is led by one of its employees and/or decisions are not taken by a vote of the full membership. Legal changes have led to the following announcement:

"The Evangelical Alliance and the Charity Commission have announced the completion of three model governing documents that provide guidance for independent churches. These documents are the culmination of four years of work.

The documents set out the proper checks and balances required to allow paid church leaders to take appropriate leadership responsibilities as church charity trustees, manage any potential conflicts of interest, and offer churches a legal structure to help govern their charity.

The work, initiated in 2003, was primarily designed to strengthen accountability and governance of new independent churches. The model governing documents have been drawn up by the Evangelical Alliance, African and Caribbean Evangelical Alliance, Anthony Collins (solicitors) and Stewardship, in partnership with the Charity Commission . . ."

I should say before I start—there is a reason why I don't usually blog about politics. It's not normally something I feel strongly about. But right now a thought is welling up within me—something I suspect many people are feeling and few are willing to ask:

Is it time for the Labour Party to fire their new leader and our prime minister?

There — I've asked the unthinkable. Although, of course, since I am not a Labour MP, nor even a member or committed supporter of any political party, there is nothing I can do to bring about Brown's downfall, other than perhaps write this post. But if you are a Labour MP reading this post, all I can say to you is perhaps you need to ask yourself, "Is it time to consider putting country before party, and begin to explore the possibility of changing your leader?" All it would take is the confidence to stand up to him. I'm sure many of you must be wondering why none of you had the courage to stand against him in a true leadership election. That surely was Brown's first mistake—not ensuring that there was a true open contest for the leader's chair.

When I wrote a post last month entitled "The Beginning of the End for Brown?" I certainly did not expect to see what we have seen since then. I must stress that I am not a committed Tory supporter, and am not even sure that David Cameron would do a vastly better job. Rather, I am beginning to feel that for the good of the nation, and for the good of Brown's increasingly long and persecuted-looking face, it's time to draw this more swiftly to the conclusion we know is coming. I still remember the look of relief on Major's face when he lost the election to Blair. I genuinely don't think it's going to do Brown much good to hang on, and more importantly than that, I'm starting to have serious doubts about what this is going to do to our nation.

In the short months since Brown took over from our properly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, let's look at the catalouge of errors, and in particular the indecision we have seen from Brown.

• We saw the foot-and-mouth crisis handled badly, with premature declarations that we were "free" of the illness, and allowing the lab that leaked the virus to go on working, resulting this past week in an astonishing second leak. A decisive leader would have shut the lab down and ensured that such labs did not work next to farms again.
  
  
• In the Northern Rock fiasco, we saw early dithering about whether to bail the bank out or let it go bust. It seems we, the taxpayer, have now loaned up to perhaps a staggering 30 billion to this bank. I can only assume that much of this has gone on enabling Northern Rock to repay loans made by other banks who should have known better. Surely there may well be other banks at risk. The extension of the ad hoc "savings guarantee" to all bank deposits in the UK suggests this might be the case. In the meantime we still don't know what is going to happen to Northern Rock. A decisive leader would have either let the bank go bust or simply nationalized it. To allow this drain on the public finances, which now exceeds the primary school budget, to continue to grow is inexcusable. We have even been told that the loans might be illegal under EU law! To preside over the first run on a UK bank in 150 years is both shameful and obviously preventable and predictable (e.g. up front offering the savings guarantee but no loan, for example). What is shocking is that so many other crises are ongoing that this latest growth in the bank's national debt barely gets a mention. A decisive leader might have seen this crisis coming and prevented it, or could have acted in a much clearer way from the beginning instead of what is now shameful and dangerous indecision.
  
  
• Brown has presided—the most damaging of all of the above for Brown personally as it happened in his old department—over the biggest data security breach I suspect has ever occurred anywhere in world history. Brown expects us to believe that the system he approved to be put in place allowed a junior official to simply download the names, addresses, phone numbers, and bank accounts of every child in the UK and their parents. If that is so, then he should resign in shame for that alone. It is simply unbelievable. I suspect that it also isn't quite true, as Nick Robinson hints in his sharing of an email trail with us. A decisive leader would have never allowed a careless culture to arise, and would have called in the police to investigate what was surely a breach of the law.
  
  
• Brown has also, by his own admission, presided over a Labour Party which broke the law flagrantly over voter donations. He has not looked too good in refusing to initially call in the police, and in almost trying to blame his deputy in the whole "I know nothing about this man" bit. A decisive leader would have either demanded the head of his deputy before making his announcement or wholeheartedly supported her. Also, what kind of party is so casual about its fund raising?

Surely any one of these things would be enough to bring down the CEO of a company that had failed us all so badly. This is our government. None of these crises are in one sense massive—if we were to face a more serious situation, I would be very concerned indeed. Yet all of them have been made worse, not better, by our Prime Minister and his government. Am I the only one who thinks it is Brown himself who should resign?

UPDATE
One thing I forgot to mention was picked up by the BBC yesterday. The deathly power of humour to a politician. Here's what they said: they first quoted from Vince Cable the following devestating put-down about Brown.

The prime minister had been transformed, he said, from "Stalin into Mr Bean."

The PM's face fell.

Opposition MPs fell about.

Quite a few Labour members struggled not to do the same.

The truly worrying thing, from the Brownite perspective is that, just now, a man who's worked hard to establish strength, sound judgement and deadly seriousness as his defining characteristics seems to be in danger of becoming a figure of fun. . . .

Tony Blair was generally despised or admired.

Margaret Thatcher was often both, at once.

Recoverable?

I cannot remember an exquisitely delivered one-liner hitting home against either of them in quite the same way as we saw this week

Other blogs and main stream media are also strongly criticizing Brown this weekend. This includes the following:

* The Spectator
* The Quiet One
* Matthew Parris of the Times who says the following:

What possessed Gordon Brown to declare, before he had the least reason to know it to be true, that there was one individual alone, Labour's general secretary, who knew about the fake donors just as the media began unearthing all the others, and, as I write, are still unearthing? Didn't that great strategist, that colossus of a political intellect, pause for a moment to wonder whether there might be more to come out?

In what stunted imagination but Mr Brown's could the plan then be hatched to make Harriet Harman the scapegoat for receiving, on Mr Brown's own lieutenant's advice, a sum representing less than 1 per cent of the total monies paid by David Abrahams? To what bully's mind but Mr Brown's could it fail to occur that if he kicked her in the stomach she might defend herself?"

FURTHER UPDATE
Another government data breach has been revealed. This is just unbelievable!

I don't often mention politics on this blog. But today I simply can't resist. This weekend, election fever was rife in the UK. One of the many oddities of our UK political system is that, right now, a man who was never directly elected by the population to be Prime Minister has the power to call an election at a time of his choosing between now and June 2010!

Because we don't have term limits or fixed terms for Parliament, Tony Blair finally stepped aside to let his Finance Minister become Prime Minister. There wasn't even a true election within the Labour party since no one stood against him. Please don't think I am merely revealing an imagined political bias if I tell you that, so far, I am definitely less impressed with Brown's leadership ability than with his financial acumen or policy-making.

After initially claiming there was no need to hold an election, immediately on taking over the premiership just three months ago, he was emboldened by the so-called "honeymoon period bounce," during which his poll ratings climbed. At times I still think he looks a bit like a boy playing with his new toys. Certainly the way he has been teasing people over the last few weeks about a possible election has seemed somewhat smug to me. He knows that he has the power to do so as and when he chooses. Since things were looking good for him, he allowed everybody to think that he was undoubtedly going to call an election. He has even been accused of "spinning" over soldiers in Iraq this past week and using civil servants against the Tories. Now opinion polls have swung the other way. It is now, in the words of Nick Robinson of the BBC, "all tosh." Calling an election is surely a power that ought not to sit in the hands of the elected (or in his case unelected) leader of our nation. This weekend has certainly underlined that for me.

Any pledge by Cameron that if he were Prime Minister he would give up the right to call an election and establish an alternative system would surely gain him some more votes whenever Brown eventually decides to go to the people!

In light of all the speculation that an announcement could be made about an election early next week (to take place, believe it or not, at the beginning of November!!) I decided earlier this weekend that I had better listen to both leaders' speeches.

I listened to David Cameron's first. The leader of Margaret Thatcher's party, Cameron spoke for his political life. Without an autocue. Without detailed notes. He was engaging. Even funny at times. He announced a massive increase in the amount of money that can be inherited free of death duties—sufficient to take the value of most of England's homes out of the equation. Unemployed who refused a "fair job offer" would lose benefits. There would be a married persons tax allowance, and the benefit system would no longer penalize people for being married or in a relationship.

That one speech changed Brown's mind—that and the weekend polls, which placed Cameron in the lead over him! Then, cynicism of cynicism! We see a somewhat humbled Brown saying he wants the election to be about his view of the future, and so it will be in the future—a future of his choosing—and, he claimed it had absolutely nothing to do with the polls!

After listening to Cameron's speech, and before Brown's announcement, I began to listen to Brown's. I didn't get very far into it, but in terms of the style and rhetoric, I certainly didn't enjoy it half as much as Cameron's. Now I feel I don't need to continue to listen.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of the Conservative Party (even though I do know one of their candidates, Philippa Stroud), nor as a rejection of Labour. All I am saying is that leadership is about tactics, and about good speeches. The past few weeks has surely seen Brown look beaten by Cameron on both counts. Thanks to our electoral system, he can now lick his wounds, get on with running the country, and decide just how he can respond to the political grenade demonstrated in the following speech, which is available in both video and full text from the Conservative Party website.

I was going to try and think of something thoughtful to say today. I then realized that what I said last year couldn't be improved on by me, except that it already had, the year before. So here are the last two years of Independence Day blogging from me.

Incidentally, it is interesting to see that several of the topics I said I wanted to get back to blogging about, I still haven't! Having said that, there has been progress on a few of them this last year! So here's what I had to say on the last two Independence Days:

2006
Blogging can, because of this power for influence, be a powerful force for good and potentially a means of challenging those with established "off-blog" authority. Where that authority is being misused, or needs to be corrected, then I guess blogging can usefully be a tool - a bit like in the Reformation where pamphlets and the printing press led to a single obscure monk's weird ideas being spread throughout the known world. We should welcome this opportunity to be always reforming and holding those with influential voices to account.

But, for many bloggers - even sadly some Christian ones - the very concept of authority seems to have gone missing. Blogging can give people delusions about their own importance. It concerns me that in our drive to make a mark and stand for our own opinions, it is possible for us to denigrate those with whom we disagree, forgetting in some cases their positions of authority within the church. This wouldn't be so bad if some of the most vociferous critics of Christian leaders online were not themselves so unaccountable. The harshest voices are invariably the ones who do not tell us who they are, nor what church they go to, nor whose authority they are under. For many, of course, they do not feel the NEED to be under anybody's authority - let's be free, let's be "independent" they cry!

Of course, American Independence Day speaks to this. Few, even on this side of the Atlantic, would today doubt that throwing off the tyranny of the British king was the best thing the US could have done, both for itself and for the mother country. But imagine, if instead of a domineering and oppressive regime, there had been a king who put their interests first and exported not just "civilisation," but also the democracy we had begun to experience in England. Who knows? Perhaps we would now be living in some kind of mega-state - the United States of America and Britain or the British and American Federation or perhaps even the Anglosphere of which some people speak (see also the Wikipaedia entry on the Anglosphere).

Such thoughts are, of course, a bit fanciful, but what is perhaps less fanciful is to imagine the anarchy that would have ensued (and indeed nearly did!) if, in the history of the liberated America, the founding fathers had not learnt to balance the needs for freedom and for collective responsibility. For a country, like a church and like a family, needs to have some form of leadership and accountability. The truth is, we are not all "independent," and both in the modern family of nations and also in their constitutions (both written and in our case virtual!) this is recognised.

The pressure to be independent and stand alone is, we all often feel, never more powerfully felt than in the blogosphere. This blog has always stood for an aim to help us bloggers who follow the cause of Christ to try to stand together, even if only online! For, if we cannot learn from one another, disagree with each other honourably, and glorify Christ throughout all these interactions, there is something seriously wrong.

I have written in the past about principles for Christian blogging - we must remember that one of our characteristics as Christians is community. Let's blog to build one another up and support the leaders of the Christian movement out there in the "real world."

2005
It may surprise my American readers to know that until today I had never even read a copy of your Declaration of Independence, not a single line of it! So it really was about time I remedied that.

I hope you will forgive me a somewhat rambling post which just reflects my personal feelings whilst reading it. It felt kind of like reading a set of divorce papers which paved the way for the "special relationship" that we now share. It is of course not entirely unlike the relationship some divorced couples manage to attain- especially for the sake of the children. In a funny sort of way, at least on this side of the Atlantic it sometimes feels as if we still see many of the nations of the world as being dependent on us. The current state of interest around the G8 summitt certainly doesnt minimise that feeling. One Yank (Bill Gates!) who I watched briefly on the Televised Live8 concert seemed anxious to praise Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for their leadership on the issue of world poverty.

Of course we Brits have the dubious priviledge of having educated the world about "liberty" and "freedom" whilst at the same time oppressing them to such an extent that we spawned nation state after nation state when the population wanted their independence.

It would seem that we Brits were busy trying to rule the entire world whilst all the time believing we were spreading democracy around. Bizzarely even in Hong Kong we never actually implemented democracy before leaving, but expect the Chinese from whom we rented the territory to do so after we left without even for a moment considering that hippocritical! When asked about why he stays in Africa, the character of Gefferey in the film Six Degrees of Separation gives the somewhat trite reply that has at least to one interpretation of history a certain ring of truth to it- "One has to stay there. To educate the black workers. And we'll know we've been successful when they kill us."

There is a large portion of our history that the English are far from proud of. I remember well that as a child the whole period of the history of our empire was somewhat brushed over in our history lessons. We skipped from Oliver Cromwell to 1914. Somehow, and not at all surprisingly we seemed more confident with our roll as the champion of freedom in the 20th Century's wars than our previous one in building the largest empire the world has ever known.

Arguably the ideals of the document I will quote from below are not of course fully realised even today. But the ideas expressed in this document have power, and whilst we still have a monarch in the UK the fact that it would simply not be possible for that monarch to act in such a tyranical manner may in no small sense be partly thanks to the actions of our American cousins as we now like to call them.

I have often said that one aspect of the American political system that is sensible is term limits for the president. It is no great surprise to anyone that Tony Blair has today announced his intention to resign as prime minister at the end of June.

In so doing, he has achieved a rare thing in British politics — leaving power at a time of his choosing and at a moment which many feel will place him in a good light. In a move that has been carefully choreographed, his announcement comes shortly after the monumental events that occurred in Northern Ireland earlier this week and before a round of international conferences, which Tony Blair will still lead before what appears to be the inevitable takeover by Gordon Brown, who is the current Chancellor/ Finance Minister.

Tony Blair clearly wants to be remembered as the politician who thought the unthinkable in Northern Ireland and brought Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams to the same table for peace.

He was very emotional at times in his speech, and the BBC has made the video of the whole speech available, as well as the transcript. In the video, Blair shows us once again what a master communicator he is, and I found myself quite choked as this announcement reflects the end of a chapter in the life of my country.

Whether you agree or disagree with Blair’s actions, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a master politician, probably the master politician of his generation anywhere in the world today. He has an astonishing self-belief, and closed his statement with a claim that Britain is the greatest nation on earth, something which almost no other Brit I know would dare to say! There is no doubt that such confident leadership is a great need of people, particularly in these days. Blair will be missed, more than some of us realise.

The following quotes from his speech stood out to me:

• “I have been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years. In this job, in the world today, that is long enough, for me, but more especially for the country.”
  
  
  
• “Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down.”
  
  
  
• “I looked at my own country, a great country — wonderful history, magnificent traditions, proud of its past, but strangely uncertain of its future, uncertain about the future, almost old-fashioned.”
  
  
  
• “So 1997 was a moment for a new beginning, for sweeping away all the detritus of the past.”
  
  
  
• “Expectations were so high, too high - too high in a way for either of us.”
  
  
  
• “There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: 'More jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter,' — this one.”
  
  
  
• “Think about the culture of Britain in 2007. I don't just mean our arts that are thriving. I mean our values, the minimum wage, paid holidays as a right, amongst the best maternity pay and leave in Europe, equality for gay people.
  
  Or look at the debates that reverberate round the world today - the global movement to support Africa in its struggle against poverty, climate change, the fight against terrorism.
  
  Britain is not a follower. It is a leader. It gets the essential characteristic of today's world — its interdependence.
  
  This is a country today that for all its faults, for all the myriad of unresolved problems and fresh challenges, is comfortable in the 21st Century, at home in its own skin, able not just to be proud of its past but confident of its future.”
  
  
• “But I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right.
  
  I may have been wrong. That is your call. But believe one thing, if nothing else. I did what I thought was right for our country.
  
  I came into office with high hopes for Britain's future. I leave it with even higher hopes for Britain's future.
  
  This is a country that can, today, be excited by the opportunities, not constantly fretful of the dangers.
  
  People often say to me: 'It's a tough job' — not really.
  
  A tough life is the life the young severely disabled children have and their parents, who visited me in Parliament the other week.
  
  Tough is the life my dad had, his whole career cut short at the age of 40 by a stroke. I have been very lucky and very blessed. This country is a blessed nation.
  
  The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth.
  
  It has been an honour to serve it. I give my thanks to you, the British people, for the times I have succeeded, and my apologies to you for the times I have fallen short. Good luck.”