Crimperman.org

I’m not an Anglican and — as some people seem to make this distinction — I don’t attend a CofE church either. For this reason I’ve kept out of the recent debate over the Pope’s offer to bring Anglicans disaffected by the women priests “issue” into the Roman Catholic Church. As someone who has not been part of a recognised denomination for most of his Christian (nay actual) life, I personally find the objections to the ordination of women — well — objectionable. Not that my choice of denomination (or not) should make any difference to that view or that my view is really worthy of much attention.

The sign at St Saviour's Walthamstow

Anyway, following the Pope’s offer (is this the ecumenical equivalent of head-hunting?), some Anglican priests, churches and groups have seriously considered crossing the house, shall we say. This includes one in Walthamstow where it seems the parishioners have taken umbrage to the idea as you can see from the photo to the right. As my friend the Church Mouse says: what a bunch of morons! Incidentally, I’m again grateful to the Mouse for highlighting something which tends to get missed or by mainstream news outlets.

Upon seeing that photo the first thought that sprung to my mind was “why bother with the graffiti? Why not just — oh I don’t know — go to another church?” The answer is possibly, in this case at least, that the vandals were not members of that church. But who knows? Maybe we have vigilante Anglicans on the loose. I’m reminded of the “vigilante’s for God” storyline from Drop the Dead Donkey years ago. I jest but some of the more unsavoury and shameful parts of Church history have been borne out of such self-important emotions. Why this is so important to the “artists” that they feel the need to perform such a childish act is way beyond me? Maybe it’s because I’m the kind of person who is angered but just shrugs when “Marathon” becomes “Snickers” and “Coco Pops” try to become “Choco Krispies”. But I am also the kind of person who choose his supermarket based on the number and availability of own-brand fair trade goods within the store. I’m also somebody who will (normally) refuse a free Kit-Kat because I find the ethics of the company behind it objectionable. If the supermarket you usually use stops selling the products you like: don’t go there in future! The same should apply to your church as well but it doesn’t, does it?

For some reason when certain issues raise their heads we Christians are very much “in and of the world”, throwing not only the toys but the bedding out of the pram as well. Yet for other situations — when we should be more vocal — the noise-level from the Church can be very low indeed. Millions of people are exploited beyond reason to fuel our “civilised” lives and yet churches are still serving unfairly-traded tea & coffee. Hundreds of thousands of Christians are ostracised, beaten up, imprisoned and sometimes killed just for saying “Jesus is Lord” and the silence from large parts of the Church is deafening. A group of people decide that it’s about time women were treated somewhat fairly in their denomination and there’s a — way too vocal — threat of an exodus. Some people find that pondering in and of itself objectionable and decide to daub the church sign board with graffiti. There are things we should march in the streets about. The ordination of women bishops and the fact that somebody else doesn’t like that idea and might leave the denomination should not be in that list.

Comfort zones

I am aware that what I am saying could be taken as an advocacy of church-hopping where people dislike the what the teaching at a particular church says about their lifestyle so they move on. Usually with a vocal dissent to the rest of the congregation as they leave. I’m not advocating that practice at all and always feel that if God is pulling you away from your current church it’s unlikely to be because the teaching is shining a light on the parts of your life that you’d rather not speak about. Also the issue with women priests is complicated by the fact that the disatisfied clergy are also contemplating about leaving their employer as well. But if you are considering leaving your denomination and/or church because there is a growing clash in the core beliefs between you, then do so without fuss, without fanfare and with dignity. If you feel the need to shout, protest and generally make a nuisance of yourself before or as you leave then chances are you are leaving for the wrong reason. Discuss the matter with those above you and if required find some mutual way to notify everyone else. To do anything else is like a child slamming every door when being sent to their room and is reminiscent of somebody who is more interested that people know they are leaving than actually leaving.

As for the morons who wrote such lovely words on the church sign: grow up. If you don’t like the fact that St Saviour’s is considering moving to Rome, choose another church but again do it with dignity and peace. Stomping around, spray painting slogans and generally sulking reminds me of my four year old in a tantrum (well except the spray painting).

I’ve been thinking about heaven again – mostly because because it’s been the subject of recent small house groups at church lately I suppose. Anyway have a look at this verse from Revelation 6:

⁹When the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been killed because they were faithful to the word of God and to the message they had received.¹⁰ These souls shouted in a loud voice, “Holy and true Lord, how long until you judge the people of the earth and punish them for killing us?” ¹¹ Then each one of them was given a white robe and was told to wait a short time longer. There were still some of their fellow servants and brothers and sisters in the service of Christ who must be killed as they were. They had to wait until all of this was finished.    ( Revelation 6:9-11 NCV )

The souls under the altar there clearly remember what they had to endure to get to heaven – including the painful stuff. This seems to be in conflict with the concept that all the tears in Heaven will be wiped away, there’ll be no more pain and no hurting. This vision of paradise could be somewhat marred by the thought that in the afterlife we’ll not forget the stuff we had to go through here on earth. Most of use would probably be content with just remembering the happy times wouldn’t we?

Or would we?

It strikes me that we need to remember the pain in order to give some point of reference to the good times. A glorious sunset is made even more glorious when comparing it to a dark grey and dismal drizzle from the day before. Even a simple meal can seem wonderful when it comes after a period of starvation. Similarly wouldn’t the joy of heaven would be made greater by the memory of what was endured on earth. Of course it’s true that such memories could bring anger, bitterness or remorse but we need to also remember that – in the case of the first two at least – such emotions are not heaven. As for the remorse, yes it’s possible that along with the painful memories of what happened to us will be the memories of the times we were less than humane, less than faithful or generally missed the mark when it came to our relationship with God and our fellow humans.

This is where the tear wiping could come into it. It’s also worth remembering that – no matter how hard we find it now – it’s much easier to believe in our forgiveness when we are being told – face to face – by the one who is forgiving us. When the hand that wipes your tears also contains the wounds that heal you, its harder to ignore or forget. Of course many times we are more than able to enjoy that forgiveness here, on earth. Sometimes we all struggle though and I find it comforting to know that it won’t always be that way.

Hope is a wonderful thing – don’t you think?

Way back in 2005 (was it really that long ago) I posted a piece on my blog entitled “Christianity that doesn’t spread from the fridge“.

In that I explained how the use of copyright can stifle the spread of worship and faith among churches. I also focused on the ridiculous situation that means the vehicles of worship and relationship that God has inspired his people to create are locked down and used as revenue generators rather than faith-builders. If you read this blog long enough you’ll soon discover I am a fan of freedom and for creative works (including the text and artwork on this site) I encourage the use of Creative Commons licences. My spreading from the fridge piece ended with a rallying cry:

So here’s a wake up call to the Christian publishers, Bible houses, Song composers and authors of today: Think about why you do that work? If it’s for God’s glory and the furtherance of God’s kingdom then are you not restricting the very purpose of that work by restricting the fair usage of it by others? Christianity is about risks – take one with the work you do for him and see if God likes it.

I’m happy to say that I’ve found somebody who has. I’m not for a second claiming that they did because of anything I wrote – I doubt they’ve even heard of me – but when I found the music it blessed me. Yes I know that can be a cheesy phrase, all too often bandied around but in this instance it’s the most accurate description I can use.

Take Me In | live worship | freely download | freely use

Murray Bunton of Australia has produced and made available a live album of great original songs and made them available under a Creative Commons licence. I’m never any good at music reviews so I’m not going to try and explain where these songs fit in the spectrum of Christian music. What I will say is that the songs on this album are of a high quality – in terms of the writing, performance and production.

Murray has also made the recordings, the lyrics  and the guitar chord sheets freely available under the same licence as my artwork: the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share-Alike licence. This means you can use them, copy them, pass them around as much as you like without charge or penalty. You just can’t sell them or use them in a comercial venture. Seems entirely fair to me and I applaud and thank Murray for this step. Others will be greatly encouraged by the music and further still by the decision to allow the works to be freely used in their intended purpose.

If you produce or know of other Christian worship songs under a Creative Commons licence, feel free to post a link as a comment here.

Not as much as some would have us believe it seems.

The blue whale model - 30m long

Recently I visited the Natural History Museum in London with my family. We’ve been before and so this time skipped the long queues for the dinosaur exhibit and went direct to the mammals and particularly the aquatic mammal exhibit. You see I remembered going as a kid and being awed by the sheer size of the full-scale model of a blue whale they have there. I hoped my children would be similarly impressed. My hopes were fulfilled as they stood and gaped at the room-filling model and the real blue whale skeleton next to it.

What then interested me and Mrs C further was the information around the room. They have a skeleton of a sperm whale including a mock up of the spermiceti organs in it’s head. This is what gives the sperm whale its characteristic shape and name. As other aquatic mammals don’t possess this feature we wondered what it might be for. The refreshingly honest answer on the panel was “we don’t know”. It might be to aid buoyancy and swift asc/descendency, it might be used as a kind of weapon during inter-male fights and it might be used to aid echolocation (finding your way around in the dark using sounds) but the scientists just don’t know. Then we moved to the panel about whale communication and we found out that as whales have no vocal chords, the science community is still unclear exactly how they make noises. It’s possible it’s through cavities in their upper head but again the real answer is “we don’t know”. By the time we got to the narwhal exhibit we were looking for the “we don’t know” part. In this case it was the purpose of the spectacular tusk on the male’s head. Could it be for fighting again? Perhaps it’s the aquatic equivalent of the peacock’s tail or the Lion’s mane? Again nobody really knows for sure.

This is all fine and I applaud the honesty in putting a simple “we don’t know” where applicable (if only Christians would do the same instead of spouting off about “why” something happened the way it did) but what bothers me is the way in which science is often reported. Yes this is not the scientists fault but plenty of amateur scientists and media reports often spout scientific theory as fact. I find this concerning. If science can’t determine the role or function of a part of a living creature, why do we so often hear theory about the behaviour and fate of extinct species portrayed as fact? My five-year-old recently told me about the colours, skin and even feathers of certain dinosaur species – basing his statements on what he had seen and read. That’s fine, he is five after all, but what bothers me is the way so many adults will blindly accept the same “evidence” as a basis of their own belief (and that is what it is by the way). Worse, many of those same adults will scoff at those who believe in God as creator because there is “no evidence”.

I appreciate I am getting into dangerous territory here for a Christian….but here’s the thing. I happen to believe in God, I believe he is all powerful and that he created the earth and everything in it. Can I say the exact process through which he did that? No, I wasn’t there and the only account I have to go by is somewhat poetic and was written sometime after the fact by a human trying to express things which are probably way beyond his or my capacity of understanding. Do I believe God is capable of creating the “heavens and the earth” in 6 days? Absolutely. Could he do it by simply speaking? I believe so. Can I prove it? No. Do I know whether it was six periods of 24 hours or (as some recent theories suggest) six longer periods? No I don’t know. Does it matter that much to me? No.

Now some would read the paragraph above and mock me for the holes in it. I know this because others have done so in the past. Yet those that mock, it seems often base their own belief on similar holes. The difference between the two is that I believe God knows the answers and I am happy to accept that right now finding out the scientific process by which a Narwhal came to have a tusk and what it is for is not really going to affect my life greatly nor the lives of any human that I know of. Those promoting the scientific viewpoint (not necessarily the scientific community themselves) seem to imply we should be uneasy with holes in our beliefs.

Perhaps being content to hold less-tightly to the things we don’t understand is part of the contentment in all situations that the apostle Paul wrote of. I don’t know but I do know that I absolutely love the Natural History Museum and the fact that much of it is arranged to promote a theory that I don’t subscribe to doesn’t bother me at all – particularly because it is a theory with at least as many holes and gaps as the belief I hold to of how creation/nature got here. The NHM is a great place, particularly if you have younger children – just get there early and be prepared to queue for some time to to see the dinosaur exhibit.

Ever been to one of those church services where the leader makes a statement and the congregation (or those who are familiar with it) respond with another statement? A common one sometime back went like this..

leader: God is good
congregation: All the time!
leader: And all the time..
congergation: God is good!

If you’ve never sat through one, they can be as cheesy as that makes it sound – sometimes they’re not though and that usually depends on how many times you’ve encountered such practices (or perhaps whether you’ve read “The Visitation” by Frank Peretti ) ). Anyway, I digress…

How accurate is that particular meme? Is God good all the time? Well. yes of course he is but does it always feel that way? Try asking that of somebody who is going through a rough time and feels like God is silent. Try asking it of somebody who has encountered something which shakes their very faith to the core – perhaps the unexpected loss of a loved one. Try asking it of someone who is persecuted for their faith by their own family who days earlier showed them love. Try asking it of someone who feels like the walls are caving in and nobody cares. By the way, if you live in a world where Christians don’t feel like that – ever – then I suggest you may want to consider broadening your horizons or paying closer attention to the Christians around you.

In such situations it is quite normal, even (especially?) for Christians, to question the goodness of God. It is also quite usual for the Christians around them to give them the equivalent of “keep your chin up” type advice. Scriptures are quoted, demonic “presence” is prayed against and the “victim’s” apparent “lack of faith” is usually brought up – in a loving way of course. We who are not in those places (at the time) need to remember that such responses are not always as helpful as they seemed in your head. And thos eof us going through such moments, need to remember that sometimes the words which seem lacking in thought have behind them a heart which just wants to help in any way they can – a heart of love. Having recently been in a place where I questioned God’s purpose in my situation, I can testify to how good it was to receive the opposite response from the Christians around me. Encouragement without patronisation, support without even implied finger pointing, walking beside rather than before – all these responses showed me what love is. I was truly blessed by the way my brother’s and sister’s in Christ walked with me through my own personal valley, kept reminding me of the grace of God (through action more than words) and whilst giving me space — never allowed me to slip into a dangerous solitude.

At times when you are questioning your faith; your life and your God, you need people round you who will treat you like it is okay to do so but not permit you to forget why you first had those things. If you are in that place, don’t blame those trying to help – even if they are not actually helping. Look to the heart behind their actions or words and respond to that. If you are not in a valley, try to remember how it felt last time you were and try not to overwhelm the other one with your gestures or advice. Give and be receptive of support to or from the Christians around you or as Jesus commanded us: “Love one another as I have loved you”. Such love reminds us that God is good, all the time.

I’ve been thinking about Heaven a lot lately. Not in a morbid sense you understand but more in terms of wondering about the future.

A common opinion I’ve heard about Heaven (even from Christians) is how it’ll probably be boring, what with everyone sitting on clouds and playing harps. Of course any reasonable study of the Biblical passages referring to the afterlife (for Christians that is) soon reveals a much different picture to the one popularised by Renaissance art. That said there will still be things happening which – from our limited perspective here on Earth – may seem to be a little less than enthralling. For example, once we are in an eternal life, where time exists but just does not have the same effect on us, then we are able to converse for longer. Conversations could well take as long as they need, hours, days, years??? On the face of it – that could seem a boredom-inducing experience. Perhaps we need a new perspective on this though.

For my part, my musings have lead me to the opinion that we won’t be bored in Heaven. The reason for this is because being bored is a somewhat selfish state of mind. We become bored because the person we are listening to, the thing we are involved in or the job we are doing is just not what we want to be doing at that moment. We generally have what we consider to be “better” things to do. Will such selfishness exist in Heaven? I think not. Certainly if Heaven is perfect then such attitudes cannot be present. “Looking out for number one” is counter to the core teachings — and life — of Christ. So without the selfishness that breeds it it’s hard to see how we could find anything in Heaven boring.

Some time (scarily it was nine years) ago I wrote a piece on here entitled “Touching a heart“. A few years later I followed that up with a piece called “Further lessons from a child“.

Both those pieces centered on lessons I had learned by observing my niece and I often find myself reflecting on the things I have (and haven’t) learned as a result of those experiences. Nowadays I have children of my own and just a few weeks back my son (who at the time was two and a half) taught me something about faith.

We’ve all been there, you wake up in the middle of the night and your throat is a dry as sandpaper. The trouble for my son this time was that we hadn’t left a drink next to his bed for him. So he did what toddlers do in the middle of the night and cried out for one of us to go in. My wife went and discovered the ongoing thirst issue. Actually the words my son used were “How about a nice cool drink mum?”. Mum said she would bring one and left to go downstairs.

So what did my son do during the wait? He sat on his bed quietly waiting for his Mum to return. You see he had no doubt that she would come back or that she would have the water in her hand when she did. He trusted her, implicitly and, to him, the fact that she had said she would do something was enough. No more tears, no going to the top of the stairs, no watching the door, no worrying just patience and – when she returned – thanks. In short my son has faith in his mother – and rightfully so.

So let me ask you the question this triggered me to ask myself. How often do you wait patiently for God? How much do you trust that He will do what He has said? How much faith do you have in Him?

Always handy having kids around when you need a few lessons don’t you think?

It’s been a while since I posted something here – and longer since that was specifically applicable to Christians. Recently I was asked to give a talk (don’t like to think of them as sermons as that always conjurs images of people falling asleep) at my church. Having prayed about it I felt God wanted me to speak on His promises. One of the promises I looked at was the return of Jesus and how it should inspire us to live fuller lives here.

There’s a popular but misguided saying which says that one can be so heavenly minded they are of no earthly good and a lot of people have written a lot of good stuff to refute this. I stand among the group that feels this statement is not only false but dangerous as it prvents us thinking about the one thing that should be giving us hope.

The hope for a better future in the next world is not escapism but realism. If we , as Christians, are unable to focus on the glory that is to come then what hope can we honeslty offer to the world we live in. Without the purpose of heaven in our hearts we just become ineffective as ambassadors of Christ. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the problematic (and sometimes shameful) periods of Church history all contain – at their root – people whose focus was solely on the here and now and not the great hope of tomorrow.

CS Lewis said:

“If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did the most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next.”

And I agree. We must face life – with whatever it throws at us – with both eyes on heaven and bot feet on earth. If we don’t then I fear life will overrun us and eventually we will shrivel up in our own selfishness.

Joni Eareckson Tada wrote an excellent piece, The Earthly Good of Being Heavenly Minded, for Moody Magazine which I found when doing research for my talk. It’s an honest and frank piece and yet it speaks volumes about her approach to life and just how she “copes” with here disability.

I have long been a fan of the open source philosophy along with others like Creative Commons. I like the way they allow you to distribute things in a fair manner whilst still protecting the author or the work to the extent they prefer. Much better than the restrictive and prohibitive copyright licences used so often today. This blog is distributed under a Creative commons licence. Basically you can distribute it without penalty or charge as long as you give others the same rights.

Recently it struck me how much the Christian viewpoint is left unhindered by such licences and how much it is hindered and impinged by copyright and publishing law.

Take for example a worship or praise song. In days of old, hymns were written by men and women for the use of all, without penalty, and the for the glory of God. They may have been published or distributed by word of mouth but rarely was there a restriction on their use. In short the aim of the author was to glorify God and they saw no reduction of this aim by allowing as many people as possible to freely and fairly use their works to this end.

These days? Somebody writes a song, releases it on a CD and then releases the sheet music under a copyright licence. Suddenly churches using these songs – to glorify God – are left with a minefield of legalese to overcome so that they are not “robbing” the author of their livlihood. Payments to copyright agencies (aren’t these just protection rackets?) abound on the off chance that you may use a song that was (shock) written to be used in that way.

In short, in 1850 somebody could write a hymn and churches could use it. Somebody hearing it in one church could introduce it to another without breaking the law. These days, you hear a song in one church, ask the musician for a copy of the sheet music and, if it is handed over, both of you are breaking the law. Result? songs that are written to worship God are not allowed to do so because it would impinge on the “rights” of the author. The same author who wrote the song to worship God! What is really meant by “rights” is “income”. If no copyright is placed on the music, or so the philosiphy goes, then you and I could distribute and sell said music and rob the author of their livlihood from selling the stuff they’ve written.

Imagine if people like Hillsongs, Survivor and Kingsway published their sheet music under a Creative Commons licence? You would be freely allowed to copy and distribute the sheet music but not sell it. So the song is used for it’s intended purpose (worshipping God) by many more churches, none of whom are breaking the law by doing so, none of whom are paying a licence fee just because they used a song in it’s indended purpose. But only the original composer/publisher may sell the song. This means a CD with it on continues to earn the composer a royalty.

Transpose this to Bibles. There are some great modern translation of the Bible. Some of you may not like them, everyone has their favourites. There are also some great computer programs to help us read and study the bible. But unless someone pays a licence then this software often only includes public domain translations like the KJV. “But if you want to use it you should pay for it” you say. fair enough but let’s take the New Century Version for example (the same applies to other versions).

I own two paper copies of the NCV in differing sizes and with differing extra bits. I also own a Palm Pilot PDA with some bible software on it. In order for me to read the NCV on my Palm Pilot I must buy another version of it. Okay so far I’m with this, seems fair. But I also own desktop bible software which doesn’t come with the NCV. I think it’s fair usage for me to want to use the same elcetronic version in two programs but only one at a time. I’ve bought the Bible (a few times now) – the translators, publishers et al have been rewarded for their work – I just want to use it on two programs. To me, this is like reading it in two different chairs. But no I would have to either wait for the software company to bring out an NCV module and then buy that one or use differing translations in differing places.

Again, suppose I have an electronic copy of a bible. I come across a friend who cannot afford one but would like one. Or I come across a friend who – not being a Christian – would like to look into the Bible on a try before you buy-in basis. I could tell both these people to go buy a modern version but doesn’t it come across as more gracious for me to give them a copy? Wouldn’t it more in the spirit of Christ for me to not expect them to pay? “So give them yours” you say – can’t it’s licenced to me and not transferrable. “Buy them one” you say – can’t because it’s no longer available for their operating system. “Copy yours – the publisher won’t mind” – no they may not mind (mostly because they wouldn’t know) but it is still illegal to do this – what does that tell my friends?

If digital versions of Bibles used Creative Commons licences then I could freely use it on any software I liked and pass it to friends for their use. At the same time I would not be allowed to sell it – only if the publisher authorises it.

“So” you’re thinking, “if the publishers use Creative Commons licences and allow you to give their stuff away – why would anyone buy them? They still lose money.”

Well, no they don’t the paper versions are still under copyright law. The recorded version of songs are also still under copyright and publishing law. And in fact if someone is given an electronic copy of a particular translation and uses it regularly, it would make sense to assume that when it comes to buying their own paper version they would plumb for the same translation.

Some authors have found that when they published their books under a Creative commons licence electronically, sales of the paper version have not dropped but been enhanced by the free distribution of the electronic one.

The point

Okay so here’s the point of this post…

It strikes me that a major aim of Christians is to become more Christ like. This would be the Christ who said “Freely you have received, freely give” then and who turned the tables on the temple sellers for making unfair profits from those who simply wanted to follow God’s way?

Where would Christianity be today if the gospel and epistle writers had prohibited copying and distribution of their writings without royalty payments? Where would we be today had people like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale had slapped copyright all over their translation or if Charles Wesley or John Newton had done the same with their hymns?

What would have happened? Christianity would have died along with the hope of humankind that it brings.

Perhaps you’re thinking that those people weren’t in this age, they didn’t need to be have been concerned about the “wrong” sorts of people corrupting their work from it’s purpose. Perhaps it’s true that they didn’t have to earn a living from their works. Perhaps these are true but most of them worked in conditions far less privielged than we do today. Most of them could have been killed if the “wrong” people got their hands on their work. Yet they did that work and they did for the higher purpose we all serve – the Kingdom of heaven.

So here’s a wake up call to the Christian publishers, Bible houses, Song composers and authors of today:

Think about why you do that work? If it’s for God’s glory and the furtherance of the God’s kingdom then are you not restricting the very purpose of that work by restricting the fair usage of it by others?

Christianity is about risks – take one with the work you do for him and see if God likes it.

There’s been an interesting post on Slashdot (a regular visit for me) recently regarding the use of Blogs as spam.

When somebody commented that they like to see a Google feature that filters out blogs a discussion ensued which included some comments about how asking people not to blog was against human rights (free speech) and also the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights.

The US Bill of Rights aside (like much of the web I am not American and have never read it so I can’t really comment) as a human and a (very occasional) blogger I thought I’d comment on the idea that blogging is a human right (that of free speech).

Much seems to be made and held of certain (to use the US term) “inalienable human rights” we aapprently have. These I am lead to believe include things like the right to life, freedom from tyranny, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion (or not accordingly).

The problem I see with this idea of human rights is that the idea is worthless on it’s own. I can bang on to my heart’s content about my freedom to life but if someone runs me over my “right” is worthless. Okay so governments can protect against such a thing but only in theory. They could ensconce in law the right to life and punish my killer but that would not actually ensure I get my right to life.

Now if we talk about Human Responsibility in place of human rights then it starts to make more sense.

• Instead of a right to life we have the responsibility to protect and care for it.
• Instead of a right to freedom we have the responsibility to allow it.
• Instead of a right to freedom of speech we have the responsibility to listen and engage in dialogue.
• Instead of a right to freedom of religion we have the responsibility to respect other’s faith (or deliberate absence thereof) but live out our own.
• Instead of a right to blog we have a responsibility to blog respectfully.
• Instead of a right to have blogs excluded from our searches, we have a responsibility to exclude them (thus implying the search engines have a responsibility to give us this functionality, much as Google does with it’s safe-searching facility now).

And human responsibility can be legislated for just as much (if not better than) human rights. Murder is the deliberate choice to avoid the responsibility to protect and care for life.

I am a Christian and throughout my life I have heard that the Bible promotes human rights. This is generally because of passages that speak of social care for the ostracised. But by my reading those passages refer to a responsibility on the part of those that have to aid those that have not. There is no mention of a widow or orphan’s right to be looked after. There is mention of the responsibility of the rest of us to do so. There is no mention of a mugged man’s right to a Samaritan’s aid, there is mention of the responsibility of us all to help those in need.

Update March 11 2012: There’s been some fuss in parts of the UK press today because the UK Government have declared Christians have no right to wear a cross openly at work. To this I would say that we Christians need to stop thinking of our rights altogether. In this instance instead of a right to wear a cross at work we have a responsibility to show our faith by our fruit and not our choice of jewelry.

One final big difference between human rights and human responsibility. It is possible to infringe on other people’s human rights without realising or meaning it. It is almost impossible to ignore your human responsibility by accident – you have to mean to do so.