Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Violent Pacifist

by J. Robert Douglass

Robert Douglass (M.Div., ATS) is a pastor in western Pennsylvania.

I have always been fascinated by the stories of martyrs. It did not surprise me, then, when I became interested in Dietrich Bonhoeffer soon after having read his book, The Cost of Discipleship. In addition to his martyrdom, I believe that I became interested in his life because of its complexity. One aspect of this complexity is Bonhoeffer’s ethics. For example, Bonhoeffer was a self-proclaimed pacifist, even going as far as making arrangements to travel to India in order to study with Gandhi, yet he was executed for his involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate Adolf Hitler.[1] Immediately the question arises, “how does a person adhere to these seemingly mutually exclusive ideas?” In attempting to answer this question, an understanding of Bonhoeffer’s ethics is required. In order to establish, at least in some sense, Bonhoeffer’s ethic, the following will examine Bonhoeffer’s theology by surveying his writings.

In order to correctly understand Bonhoeffer’s writings, it is necessary to consider their context from which they arose. One experience that seemed to have a profound effect on Bonhoeffer occurred while he was in America studying at Union Seminary in New York. While there, Bonhoeffer was exposed to the black church in Harlem.[2] This experience greatly affected his understanding of oppression. In fact, after returning to Germany, Bonhoeffer was convinced that racism would become one of the most critical problems for the church.[3]

Another incident occurred in Bonhoeffer’s life in the early 1930’s. The circumstances surrounding the event are unclear, but in recalling the event to a girlfriend, Bonhoeffer wrote, “I suddenly saw as self-evident the Christian pacifism that I had recently passionately opposed.”[4] These events are only a few of the examples of the many formative experiences that influenced Bonhoeffer’s theology and subsequently, his ethics.

Bonhoeffer’s first work, Sanctorum Communio. or The Communion of Saints, was his dissertation, which he completed in 1927. In it, we can observe a clear break with the typical enlightenment approach to morality. In addition to this break with the enlightenment, some seeds of his later works are present. This is demonstrated by the Preface, in which Bonhoeffer wrote,

The more theologians have considered the significance of the sociological category for theology, the more clearly the social intention of all the basic Christian concepts has emerged. “Person,” “primal state,” “sin,” and “revelation” are fully understandable only in relation to sociality.[5]

This idea is foundation to Bonhoeffer’s theology as will be discovered later. Bonhoeffer proceeded in the book to propose that a community’s particular culture is a type of personal character, which results in a view of the community as a collective person. Perceiving community in these terms naturally assumes a certain degree of ethical accountability in that since the individuals comprising a collective person are to be ethical, the collective person, itself, ought to be ethical.[6] In discussing the primal state of humanity, Bonhoeffer describes it as a state of humanity, Bonhoeffer describes it as a state of giving and love, which has been transformed into a state of demanding and selfishness, sin is naturally destructive to a community. This selfishness also “places the individual in the utmost loneliness, in a radical separation from God and man.”[7]

Fortunately, sin is not the last word on the subject. Thanks to Christ’s atoning death, the restoration of humanity is made possible. It is the recurring theme of Christ’s “vicarious action” that forms the new community and holds it together.[8] Thus, it is Bonhoeffer’s opinion that through this new community, Christ exists as the congregation.[9]

Having laid some foundation for examining Bonhoeffer’s understanding of ecclesiology, sociology, and the doctrine of sin, the next element of his theology to be noted is his anthropology. This anthropology is presented in the work, Act and Being, which he wrote in 1930. In the first section of the book, Bonhoeffer critiques the two epistemologies that were prevalent: transcendental and ontological philosophies. Both of these philosophies preclude any belief in God.[10] Bonhoeffer avoids the problems of these philosophies with the inclusion of the idea of revelation, that God, while is entirely separate from the individual, can be known. This move “frees” God from the individual.

This allows Bonhoeffer to eventually state that “God is not free of man but for man.”[11]

He continues in the book, to examine the implications of God’s freedom for humanity. Bonhoeffer argues that humanity “in Adam” is in bondage to sin, which he previously argued is being in bondage to self. On the other hand, humanity “in Christ” is set free from sin and self. Therefore, humanity, like God is free to be for others.[12]

It is important to note at this point that after having finished Act and Being. Bonhoeffer came to America to study at Union Seminary. This is significant because it was while he was in New York that he met Jean Lasserre, a French pastor. Lasserre’s pacifism greatly influenced Bonhoeffer. In addition, it was Lasserre who challenged Bonhoeffer to consider the Sermon on the Mount as guidelines for discipleship and not merely as a difficult passage of Scripture.[13]

The next work to be examined is Bonhoeffer’s Creation and Fall, which is a development of his lectures on creation and sin, which he delivered earlier in the winter of 1932–1933.[14] In addition to examining the first three chapters of Genesis from a theological perspective, he restates his emphasis on the social aspect of Christianity, which he had introduced in The Communion of Saints. In true Bonhoeffer fashion, Dietrich Bonhoeffer attempted to break with the trends of interpretation of his day and pioneer new ground. Instead of offering an account of “how” the world came into existence, Bonhoeffer attempted to offer a theological interpretation.[15]

For Bonhoeffer, imago Dei means that humanity has been made to live in relation to one another, as maleness and femaleness suggests. He also argues, as he did in Act and Being, that since God is free pro nobis and since “in man God creates his image on earth,” then we must live for others.[16] Another noteworthy point of Creation and Fall is Bonhoeffer’s rejection of the ideas of “orders of creation.” During this time in Germany, the concept of “orders of creation” was being employed in order to justify allegiance to Hitler. Concerning these orders, Bonhoeffer writes, “they are not orders of creation but preservation.”[17] The immediate question that arises is “preservation for what?” Thus, by this shift, Bonhoeffer moves the argument from creation to the eschaton.

In 1933, Bonhoeffer presented several lectures on Christology. While he never wrote a book on the subject, Christ the Center, was published utilizing a student’s notes from the lectures. It is important to examine this material because of its significance for his later theology. For Bonhoeffer, the primary issue of the Incarnation is not a question of “how” but “who?” After discussing the promise of a Messiah and the eventual corruption of the idea by a fallen world, Bonhoeffer explains Christ as the concealed center of human history. Furthermore, since for Bonhoeffer, Christ exists as the congregation, it is the church that is at the center of history, not the state.[18] It is at this point that we can see elements of Bonhoeffer’s Lutheranism as well as his tendency to think creatively.

It seems clear that his discussion of false Messiahs is a polemic against Hitler, especially in light of the fact that Hitler had only recently become chancellor in January of 1933. Bonhoeffer’s approach to the subject is also interesting in that he chooses to stress the Messiahship of Christ, which is an entirely Jewish idea. It almost appears as if Bonhoeffer was attempting to remind Christians that to hate Jews is to hate Christ and that we are indebted to the Jewish race for giving us Christ.

After discussing the problem of false Messiahs and a false church, Bonhoeffer turns to develop a “positive Christology.” In this discussion he deals with the humiliation of Christ. This becomes more important for his own understanding of being a Christian and for the “Christ existing as the congregation.”

Next, we must briefly look at an essay that Bonhoeffer wrote in response to Hitler’s imposition of laws such as the Aryan Clause, which expelled Christian pastors who had Jewish backgrounds. On May 7, 1933, Bonhoeffer wrote “The Church and the Jewish Question.” This document is extremely important for our attempt to answer the original question, “what were Bonhoeffer’s ethics, and how could he be involved in an assassination plot if he was truly a pacifist?”

In the essay Bonhoeffer articulates three ways that the church could relate to the state. These are cogently summarized by de Gruchy. “First of all, it must remind the state of its responsibility, that is its prophetic task; secondly, it must aid the victims of state action.” He continues by quoting Bonhoeffer, “but the third possibility ‘is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to put a spoke in the wheel itself.’”[19]

In the following years, Bonhoeffer began to work more extensively with the Confessing Church to the extent of eventually running a seminary to train pastors for the Confessing Church. These years at Finkenwalde had a significant effect on Bonhoeffer as the next work will demonstrate.

In November of 1937 The Cost of Discipleship was published under the title, Nachfolge. The work, which is an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount was the result of lectures that he gave while at Finkenwalde, although there is some evidence that he was working on the idea as of 1932.[20] The German version was divided into two parts. The first section explored the idea of discipleship in the gospels, while the second traced the idea through Pauline theology.[21] It has been suggested, and I believe rightly so, that Bonhoeffer clearly wanted to show that following Jesus, the suffering Messiah (the Synoptics) is an integral part of believing in and obeying Christ as Lord (Paul).”[22] This is significant because of the Bonhoeffer’s attempt to correct the Lutheran tendency to divorce faith from discipleship. In refuting this tendency Bonhoeffer writes, “only he who believes is obedient, and only he who obeys believes.”[23]

In studying The Cost of Discipleship. it is essential to note the radical change it implies ecclesiologically. It is clear from the book that Bonhoeffer separates the Church from the world. In fact, Bonhoeffer states that “the separation of Church and world is now complete.”[24] This separation must not be understood as withdrawal from the world, however. The work must be studied in light of his experience at Finkenwalde. People came to the seminary to study and be encouraged only in order to return to the world to minister. This is why Bonhoeffer can write,

To stay in the world with God means simply to live in the rough and tumble of the visible church, to take part in its worship and to live the life of discipleship. In so doing, we bear testimony to the defeat of the world.[25]

In the following years Hitler’s regime grew increasingly evil. Consequently, Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the resistance movement also increased. Furthermore, it was during this time that Bonhoeffer began to work on his Ethics.[26] Prior to examining the Ethics, it is essential to realize that the work which Bonhoeffer had intended was not realized. In fact, he was working on a draft chapter when he was arrested on April 5, 1943.[27]

Bonhoeffer’s discussion of ethics demonstrates a shift in his thinking. In the earliest works, he appealed to “orders of preservation” as the basis for ethics. This appeal placed the emphasis on ethics in eschatology. Ethics, while still concerned with eschatology, differs in approach somewhat. It is not that eschatology is no longer important, rather in Ethics. Bonhoeffer attempted to articulate ethics for the interim between the “then” and the “now.”[28]

In this book, Bonhoeffer defines ethics as “the bold endeavor to speak about the way in which the form of Jesus Christ takes form in our world.”[29] As previously mentioned, Bonhoeffer had proposed his “orders of preservation” as a replacement for his “orders of creation” as the basis for ethics. With the passing of time, the terms became interchangeable; “orders of preservation” eventually became a meaningless distinction. In order to substantiate his ethics, and deal with the tension of living “between the times,” Bonhoeffer employs the idea of the ultimate and penultimate. The ultimate is the Barthian notion that the world has been reconciled to God. The penultimate ethics are for concrete situations in which the Christian finds himself/herself presently.[30]

Regarding the penultimate, Bonhoeffer establishes these ethics on the concepts of mandates. This move away from his earlier notion of “orders” signifies a change in emphasis for him. Unlike The Cost of Discipleship, in writing Ethics, Bonhoeffer is much less interested in the formative aspect of ethics. This is not to say that Bonhoeffer no longer views ethics as formational; on the contrary, ethics are always formational for Bonhoeffer, in the sense that by being “free for others,” one is being conformed to Christ’s image. The emphasis for Bonhoeffer has simply become one of the importance of concrete actions.

It is somewhat surprising that Bonhoeffer would apparently back away from his strong delineation between the world and the church as articulated in The Cost of Discipleship. particularly in light of Germany’s increasing wickedness. This shift occurs, however. It is most strongly demonstrated by the balance which Bonhoeffer strives for by including both Matthew 12:30 and Mark 9:40. In Bonhoeffer’s thought, the church must so tightly define itself, in order to avoid corruption by the false church, that it becomes exclusive. Here he applies Matthew 12:30 which states, “he that is not with me is against me.” On the other hand, there are people outside of the church who are doing the Christian’s duty, often better than the German Christians. To them, Bonhoeffer applies the passage from Mark, “he that is not against me is for me.” This second group would have included many of Bonhoeffer’s family, friends and co-conspirators. The significance of these ideas is that the distinction between the two kingdoms is becoming blurred.

Perhaps the most interesting point of Bonhoeffer’s Ethics is his perception of the fundamental question of ethics. According to Bonhoeffer, the fundamental question is not a matter of doing the right thing or even being the right kind of person. Instead, Bonhoeffer believed that the question ought to be, “what is the will of God?”[31] How, then, does the Christian live ethically? Two themes from his earlier works appear as a possible answer. First, the ethical life is a life of responsibility. Bonhoeffer defines this as “the total and realistic response of man to the claim of God and of our neighbor.”[32] This works itself out by being free for others.

Second, the sign of responsibility is deputyship. At the center of the idea of deputyship is the concept of vicarious actions.[33] It is only by being free for others, even to the point of death, that we are free to live. In fact, Bonhoeffer would surely argue that to refuse to risk one’s own life for another is flight from responsibility, which violates God’s mandate.[34]

In order to understand how Bonhoeffer could have gone from his self-proclaimed pacifism to involvement in an assassination plot, it is necessary to trace his involvement in the resistance movement. It is first important to realize that Bonhoeffer’s resistance against the Third Reich was not a specific decision but a process. For example, on April 1, 1933, when Hitler declared a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses, Bonhoeffer’s ninety year-old grandmother defied a blockade around a Jewish owned business in Berlin in protest of the boycott.[35] In addition, Bonhoeffer’s father, Karl, who was one of Germany’s most respected psychiatrists believed that Hitler was mentally ill and was incapable of leading the nation.[36] These instances demonstrate that Bonhoeffer was surrounded by people opposed to Hitler throughout his life.

Bonhoeffer, himself, was vocal about his opposition to Hitler from the beginning. This resulted in the revocation of Dietrich’s privileges. First he was forbidden to speak publicly. Later he was forbidden to publish. Eventually, he was not permitted to teach, and lastly, he was not allowed to go to Berlin except to visit his parents.[37] It should be noted that it was not until the Nazis obtained enough power to carry out their program that Bonhoeffer’s involvement with the resistance movement became clandestine, because it was at that moment when what had been only the threat of tyranny became actualized.

It should not be assumed that even at this moment Bonhoeffer merely “threw his hat into the ring.” In order to remain consistent with the concept of two kingdoms, many other avenues had to have been attempted before he could legitimatize his involvement. First, legal nonviolent means of removing Hitler from power must have been pursued. This would have required the cooperation of men extremely close to Hitler, which was not available. Second, those in politically or militarily high places could have attempted to stop Hitler. They either could not or would not. This left the responsibility for stopping this dangerous person to others.[38]

Even after joining the conspirators, there were several criteria that must have been met in order to pursue tyrannicide. First, indisputable evidence must exist demonstrating abuse of power or the possibility of “irreparable harm” to the people. Second, as mentioned above, those lower or outside of the political hierarchy may only take action once those higher in the system have refused to act or have been rendered unable to take action. Third, the success of the attempted tyrannicide must be reasonably assured. This is an interesting notion, for as Rasmussen notes, “for Bonhoeffer, what is involved in creating the conditions that reasonably assure success greatly restricts when and by whom tyrannicide must be attempted with ethical justification.”[39] Fourth, only the minimal amount of violence necessary to correct the abuses of power is allowed. The final condition is that active resistance can only be turned to as a last resort.[40]

One possibility for balancing Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the conspiracy with his self-proclaimed pacifism is to point to the fact that Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the plot was completely nonviolent. Bonhoeffer simply used his position in the Abwehr. or military counter-intelligence, as a means to help Jews escape Germany and to contact the Allies in order to find support for the conspiracy.[41] The basic problem with this argument is that it does not take seriously the fact that Bonhoeffer clearly understood and agreed with the intentions of his co-conspirators. By Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the conspiracy, he was approving of the use of violence in this situation.

The next possibility is to argue that tyrannicide is somehow different than simple murder. While this is closer to the conspirators’ position, they did not seek to “whitewash” their actions by stressing Hitler’s tyranny. The conspirators understood the ethical dilemma of employing violence in an attempt to stop the Nazi machine, which was fueled by violence. It is at this point that we can see the significance of Bonhoeffer’s fundamental ethical question. The issue is not whether killing Hitler would be good or not; the issue is “is it the will God?” For this reason Bonhoeffer can reflect on these events in a poem from prison and say that the Nazis had “forced us to sinning.”[42]

The above qualifications must not diminish the significance that Hitler’s tyranny had on the conspiracy. It was the tyranny that produced what Bonhoeffer would call the “necessita,” for the plot. Again, the issue is not the righteousness of the action. For this reason, Bonhoeffer does not talk about the plan as a “may,” in that it is permissible. Instead, he refers to it as a “must,” produced by God’s mandate to be for others.[43] It was this “emergency situation” that called for and necessitated the conspiracy.

The last option, which I am sure would appeal to many of my Anabaptist friends, is to claim that Bonhoeffer was never really a pacifist. This is why until now I have referred to him as a self-proclaimed pacifist, because this interpretation is an option. I am convinced, however, that this option does not honestly consider the great angst that Bonhoeffer clearly experienced in making his decision to be involved in the plot. Today, we have little or no concept as to life in Germany in the middle of this century. For Bonhoeffer, the actions within which he participated were the only responsible path he could have chosen, given the circumstances; there was no other option for his understanding of what it meant to be a Christian.

Works Cited

• Bethge, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970.
• _____, ed. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
• Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Sanctorum Communio. London: Collins Publishers, 1963.
• _____. Act and Being. London: Collins Publishers, 1962.
• _____. Creation and Fall. London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1959.
• _____. Christ the Center. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
• _____. The Cost of Discipleship. London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1959; Collier Books, 1963.
• _____. Ethics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1965.
• _____. No Rusty Swords. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Quoted in John de Gruchy. Bonhoeffer: Witness to Jesus Christ, 19–20. London: Collins Publishers, 1988.
• _____. “Prison,” Union Quarterly Review, March 1946. Quoted in Larry L. Rasmussen. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.
• Green, Clifford J. “The Text of Bonhoeffer’s Ethics.” In New Studies in Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, ed. William J. Peck, 3–66. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987.
• de Gruchy, John. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Witness to Christ. London: Collin Publishers, 1988.
• Lovin, Robin. Christian Faith and Public Choices: The Social Ethics of Barth, Brunner, and Bonhoeffer. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
• _____. “Biographical Context” In New Studies in Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, ed. William J. Peck, 67–102. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987.
• Rasmussen, Larry L. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.
• Woelfel, James W. Bonhoeffer’s Theology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970.

Notes

1. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970), 122.
2. Ibid., 109-110.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 155.
5. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio (London: Collins Publishers, 1963), 6.
6. John de Gruchy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Witness to Christ (London: Collins Publishers, 1988), 5.
7. Bonhoeffer, 70.
8. de Gruchy, 6.
9. Bonhoeffer, 104.
10. de Gruchy, 8.
11. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Act and Being (London: Collins Publishers, 1962), 90.
12. de Gruchy, 8.
13. Bethge, 112.
14. de Gruchy, 110.
15. Ibid.
16. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1959), 8.
17. Ibid, 91.
18. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 60.
19. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) quoted in John de Gruchy, Bonhoeffer: Witness to Jesus Christ (London: Collins Publishers, 1988), 19–20.
20. de Gruchy, 25.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1959; Collier Books, 1963), 69.
24. Ibid, 212.
25. Ibid, 292.
26. Clifford J. Green, “The Text of Bonhoeffer’s Ethics” in New Studies in Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, ed. William J. Peck, (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987), 5.
27. de Gruchy, 30.
28. James Woelfel, Bonhoeffer’s Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), 245.
29. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1965), 88.
30. Woelfel, 245.
31. Robin Lovin, Christian Faith and Public Choices: the Social Ethics of Barth, Brunner, and Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 127.
32. Bonhoeffer, Ethics. 245.
33. Ibid., 195.
34. After his arrest and eventual imprisonment, Bonhoeffer began to write what has come to be known as Letters and Papers from Prison. The work contains Bonhoeffer’s last writings and is consequently, worthwhile reading. It is also important in examining his theology. It will not be examined here, however, because it is not helpful in answering our original question of how a self-proclaimed pacifist could involve himself in an assassination plot.
35. Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Life in Pictures (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 16.
36. Larry L. Rasmussen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), 136.
37. Bethge, 603.
38. Rasmussen, 136.
39. Ibid., 138.
40. Ibid., 145.
41. Robin Lovin, “Biographical Context” in New Studies in Bonhoeffer’s Ethics, ed. William J. Peck, (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987), 78.
42. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Prison,” Union Quarterly Review. March 1946, quoted in Larry L. Rasmussen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality and Resistance (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), 127.
43. Rasmussen, 144.

Day of Ceasing, Day of Joy

by Elaine A. Heath

Rev. Heath (M.Div.,ATS, 1995) is a United Methodist pastor in north east Ohio.

Introduction

When I was ten years old a friend of my mothers offered to take my brother and me to Sunday School. Our experiences with church were as scattered and varied as the numerous places we had lived. Now and then in our familial hopscotching across the country, some kindly neighbor would offer to take us children to Sunday School. We attended the Nazarene vacation Bible school, the Baptist church, the First Christian Church, the Seventh Day Adventist church. I even made it to a Mormon gathering once. So off we went, wondering what this one would be like. Two hours later my mother’s friend dropped us back at our front door.

“Well, what did you think?” my mother asked. “It was okay,” I answered. “The preacher’s wife smoked and read the comics before Sunday School started.” My mother nearly choked, then said she guessed that was the kind of Sunday School she would like to go to. She talked about blue laws and hypocrites, and railed on about the Seventh Day Adventist folks who said all the people who smoke are going to Hell, but it was rather beyond me, especially since I was hungry and ready to read the comics myself. I remember, though, thinking about the rightness of smoking and reading the comics on Sunday. Were there really people who thought God got mad when people read comics on Sunday? Just what did God think?

It has been nearly three decades since I first mused upon sabbath theology. Those primitive and youthful cogitations led to others. The question of what sabbath means stays with me, though. No one is better at breaking the sabbath than church workers. It is one of the ironies of our lives. In my pursuit of understanding the sabbath, I realized with increasing delight that God’s purpose in the day of rest is not to take away our comics. (Cigarettes are another matter.) On the contrary, the sabbath is to be a day of joy, refreshment, childlike wonder and play. It is to be a day unlike other days, a day set apart for the sheer pleasure of living. Not only that, the sabbath is to be the central day from which all other days are lived. Just as the sabbath was the zenith of creation, it is to be the high point of our week.

Let us turn now to Genesis, where we first meet the sabbath. After that we will explore sabbath teachings in the Pentateuch, highlights from the prophets, and the New Testament, most notably Jesus’ interpretation of the sabbath. In so doing we may discover new ways in which to help ourselves and other Christians more fully enjoy all that the sabbath is meant to be.

Sabbath in the Pentateuch

“So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work he had done” (Genesis 2:3). Our introduction to the sabbath, the pinnacle of God’s creation, is found early in his story. Several questions jump immediately from the text. Was God tired? After all, he rested. What does it mean that he “hallowed” the day? What can we learn about sabbath meanings from this text?

The Hebrew word rendered “rested” in English, is shabath, meaning “to cease.” Contrary to the mental image the English translation suggests, where God wipes his sweaty brow and takes a breather after all that hard work, God finishes creation, ceases from it, and says that his ceasing is blessed, hallowed. God takes pleasure in the work he has done, much like an artist stepping back, laying the brushes aside, and gazing with satisfaction at the finished painting. There is a sense of wholeness, completion, and delight.

In the seventh day wholeness we first meet the idea of holiness. God hallows (qadash), or makes holy, the seventh day. It is set apart exclusively for him.[1] Later on in Mosaic law the holiness of the sabbath is stressed in every passage. While we often think of holiness as God’s mysterious, awesome, frightening power, we should not overlook the celebratory connotation of holiness in Genesis 2:3.

Guy Robbins notes that our definition of sabbath holiness ought to include God’s approachability. The rejoicing, blessing, delightfulness of sabbath holiness is invitational. Humans are enjoined to draw near to God in the sabbath. Robbins supports his argument with reference to the burning bush dialogue. God invited Moses to take off his sandals, not out of dreadful fear, but as a welcoming gesture. Just as the fire did not consume the bush, God would not consume Moses. The usual protection of sandals was unnecessary, for Moses was welcome and safe with God.[2]

Robbins’ interpretation of the removal of sandals may be strained, nevertheless his point is well taken. Sabbath is an invitation to participate in the holy wonder of creation. God at rest is God enjoying his creation. Humans at rest are humans reflecting the enjoyment of God. Instead of fretfully looking at what needs to be done, we can look at what has been done, saying with God: “It is very good.”

After the creation text nothing more is said of the sabbath until Exodus 20:8–11, where the fourth precept in the Decalogue is the commandment to keep the sabbath. At this point sabbath meanings fairly explode upon us. Keeping the sabbath involves ceasing from work, an egalitarian rest that extends to all people, nativeborn, resident aliens, slave, or free. Animals, too, are to enjoy a day of ceasing from their work. Why are the people commanded to rest? God himself set the precedent at creation. The sabbath is to be a commemoration of Creator God’s ceasing, blessing, and hallowing.

Of all the commandments, the sabbath command is the only one concerned with the stewardship of time. The first three focus on honoring the one God, Yahweh, not turning aside to idols and not misusing his name. The next commandment has to do with time. Interestingly, while it specifies the rhythmic seasons of holy rest, the commandment does not deal with form or ritual. As Niels-Erik Andreason says, “The sabbath is time, specifically the seventh part of time, which is both given to man and required of man.“[3] Abraham Heschel contrasts the six workdays lived under the “tyranny of things of space,” to the sabbath, when we attend to holiness in time.[4]

Sabbath then, has to do with regularly, intentionally experiencing time from the vantage point of eternity. In beckoning us into his sabbath, God ushers us into his eternal “nowness,” giving us rest from all that wearies our hearts and dulls our minds. Walter Brueggemann sees the sabbath as a “kerygmatic statement about the world.”[5] God’s timeless and tranquil safekeeping of the world is proclaimed each time his people observe the day of ceasing. A well-kept sabbath is a foretaste of heaven.

What does it mean, then, to observe the ceasing commandment as we should? That question occupied the busy minds of post-exilic rabbis, whose sabbath rulings in the Mishna often went far beyond the scriptures. Robbins reminds us that the Bible does not specify what exactly one should do or not do on the sabbath, since one person’s work may be another person’s recreation. The Bible is more concerned about an abiding mental attitude than with regulations.[6] We automatically assume today that sabbath activities are religious, having to do with church attendance, wearing nice clothes, that sort of thing. It is informative to look again at Mosaic instructions for worship and sabbath. Worship activities, including sacrifices, were part of Israel’s daily life, not something done once a week. The sabbath, then, was not the day set aside to do religious things. It was, rather, the day set aside to cease from work. As we begin to explore some of the implications in the ceasing let us begin by seeing who is included in the ceasing. As we do so, we find a current of deep humanitarianism as well as a practice that promotes mental and emotional health.

Humanitarian concerns are expressed in the Exodus 20 Decalogue, but are even more obvious in the Deuteronomic account. In Deuteronomy the focus is the Exodus from Egypt, rather than creation. After listing all the people who are to cease from labor, including the male and female slaves, the law states: “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day” (Deut. 5:15). Sociologically, sabbath reflects an egalitarian message against human exploitation. Israel is commanded to observe the sabbath not only because of creation, but as a memorial of freedom from bondage. It is significant that the sabbath commandment is sandwiched between those that speak of honoring God, and those that speak of honoring other humans. Humanitarian and egalitarian sabbath themes are further developed in the sabbath and jubilee years, to which we shall direct our attention shortly. For now it is important to note that regular, frequent reminders that “you too were once a slave,” are necessary precursors to carrying out the other humanitarian thrusts of the Tora. Only as we find solidarity in our shared humanity, our shared history of sin and the need for grace, are we able to extend the dignity and provision that God wills for all people.

Robert Johnston contrasts the difference between Hebraic, Greek, and Protestant views of work, noting the egalitarian, wholistic emphasis of sabbath laws. To the ancient Greeks, rest was a luxury permitted only to the elite. The Protestant work ethic has glorified work, denigrated rest, and shamed play. The Hebraic model of sabbath, however, embraces both work and play in a rhythmic dance of life. Animals and the land itself are included in the weekly and yearly sabbaths.[7] Johnston’s concept of play as the appropriate sabbath activity is keenly insightful. The playfulness of a true sabbath is one of its most empowering qualities, giving people the mental and emotional nourishment that can only come from freely chosen, non-productive activities.

In his definition of play, Johnston describes activity that is freely chosen, has its own time and space limits, is a deliberate break in the work world, and involves its own spontaneous reality. Play frees the spirit to move outward, where it encounters the sacred. Play is not goal oriented; it is process and it is time-transcendent.[8] The consequences of authentic play are joy, release, encounters with the sacred, and a new spirit of thanksgiving and celebration that carry back into the workaday world.

What then, of those fortunate souls whose work feels like play? “For those few today whose work is intoxicating, whose labor is more play than toil, the sabbath relativises their efforts. They are not to think themselves God. But for the many for whom work is wearisome, if not debilitating, the sabbath is meant to restore. They are not to think of themselves apart from God.”[9] Sabbath ceasing from work is a means to remind us that God is God, that our lives and work are but expressions of the God who made us. Living from the sabbath means recognizing God’s sovereignty. It is a liberating proposition, releasing us from the ball and chain of self.

How biblical is the view that play is an essential part of the sabbath? We must first hearken back to Genesis 2:3, in which God ceases, blesses, and establishes the day as holy. His work has been good indeed. He simply enjoys what he has created, and in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 he instructs his people to enter that same state of ceasing, resting, and enjoying in the sabbath. In laying aside productive labor, the people are not to sit idly. Instead, there is to be an atmosphere of celebration. Eastern Orthodox iconography is illustrative at this point. Icons are expressions of divine reality in a tangible form. We, the people of God, are living icons. As we celebrate the playfulness of sabbath rest, we image the timeless, holy resting of God. We participate in his sheer joy in what he has done. Such a resting is play indeed. It is not somber, gloomy, or dour.

Madeline L’Engle, in Walking on Water, ponders the rich connection between playful creativity and authentic faith. Worship, the kind that the sabbath is meant to inspire, has much more to do with Van Gogh’s Starry Night than it does with many religious Sunday School ideas. Rejoicing that her father’s work schedule prevented her from attending Sunday School as a child, L’Engle writes: “I have talked with such a surprising number of people who have had to spend most of their lives unlearning what some well-meaning person taught them in Sunday School, that I’m glad I escaped!”[10]

Anthony Campolo would agree with L’Engle, saying that most Christians are party poopers who have taken the joy out of worship. The Kingdom of God is a Party is Campolo’s attempt to tell the church to get back to its partying roots, to their heritage that is found in sabbath law.[11] In the sabbath years and jubilee, in particular, Campolo argues, we find radical reasons for celebrative worship. The egalitarianism of weekly sabbath rest is carried to radical socialist extremes in the Jubilee.

Simply put, the sabbath and Jubilee years were unprecedented socio-economic strategies to keep the land in the hands of the people, to prevent the rise of class oppression, and to severely limit economic inequities. Every 50th year, the Jubilee, debts were to be canceled, land returned to its original owners, and prisoners set free. The political, social, and economic implications of Jubilee are staggering. It is abundantly clear from Jubilee laws that God highly values freedom, and that freedom from socio-economic oppression was one of his purposes for establishing the sabbath in all its forms. Liberation theologians and Christian social critics such as Ron Sider consider the Jubilee ordinance an important biblical mandate for social justice.[12]

While no evidence has been found that would testify to Israel ever having kept the Jubilee, some exists in the intertestamental period and early Roman Empire, showing that attempts were made to observe the sabbath year.[13] Every seventh year the land was to lie fallow (Leviticus 25:1–7). For six years Israelites were to work the land, setting aside grain and provision for the seventh year. During the sabbath year Israel was to live from the provisions saved, as well as whatever grew naturally.

The keeping of the sabbath was no light matter. Those who broke the sabbath were to be stoned. The first instance of capital punishment for sabbath-breaking is found in Numbers 15:32–36. A man who was found gathering sticks on the sabbath was summarily executed. It may seem excessively harsh to us that capital punishment was used to enforce a day of rest and play. Yet we need to keep in mind the profound theological, social, and ethical implications of the sabbath. Sabbath law was foundational to other Mosaic law. Its premise of the sovereignty of God, the creatureliness of humans, and the protection of human rights all were at stake in sabbath-breaking.

Israel’s unique covenant relationship with Yahweh would be put to the test again and again, not only in the wilderness, but primarily in the promised land. Frequent reminders such as Leviticus 19:3 link sabbath observance to remembering that Yahweh is Israel’s God. He is holy, the sabbath is holy, and his people are to continually remind themselves through the observance of sabbath, that they are a holy people. Israel has been called apart to reveal the holy God to all the world.

Sabbath Parallels in the Ancient Near East

At this juncture we might ask ourselves how unique the sabbath was to Israel. Was it strictly a Hebraic paradigm, or did other cultures in the ancient Near East also celebrate a sabbath? Scholars offer several hypothetical parallels to the Hebrew sabbath, none of which have yet been conclusively linked to the Old Testament sabbath. Ancient Akkadian, the language of the Babylonians, had the word sabattu, which is similar to the Hebrew sabbat. Some sources render the meaning of sabattu as “day of rest of the heart,” or “day of appeasement.“[14] Others link it to the day of the full moon.[15] While it is possible that sabbat and sabattu share etymological roots, it is not at all evident that cessation from work or even a weekly observance was part of sabbat. An even greater distinction between sabbat and sabattu is seen in that the Babylonian day was ominously evil, a day in which demonic forces were at work. Nothing could be further from the blessed, beautiful, holy day of the Hebrews.

Assyria had “evil days” (umu lemnu) that fell approximately every seven days. Andreason resists the possibility that these were sabbath days, arguing that even though the king and other nobility were to avoid certain tasks on evil days, the population at large was not forbidden to work.[16] Beyond that, the Hebrew sabbath was not linked to a particular day of the month, such as the day of the full moon, while umu lemnu were.

The Kenite hypothesis suggests that Moses adopted the Kenite sabbath practice during his years among the people of Midian. The Kenites were metal smiths, a factor that proponents of the Kenite theory see evidenced in Exodus 35:3, where fire-making is prohibited on the sabbath. Evidence for a weekly sabbath practice among the Kenites is lacking, however.[17]

Although these and other theories have been posited regarding ancient Near Eastern parallels to the Hebrew sabbath, evidence is too scant for any of them to be convincing. In any event, the establishment of the Hebrew sabbath created a week that was separate from lunar cycles or growing seasons. That in itself is suggestive of the distinctly Hebrew Creator God, the one who stands outside of time.

Sabbath and the Prophets

Despite their good start in keeping sabbath and punishing the hapless stick-gatherer, Israel lapsed into sin in this as well as other ordinances of the covenant. The prophets spoke loudly to Israel’s transgression of the sabbath. Their messages also reiterated the blessings promised to those who truly keep the sabbath, and include eschatological interpretations of the sabbath rest.

Sometime in the middle of the eighth century, BC, Amos left his work as a herdsman and dresser of sycamore trees in Israel’s southern kingdom, to carry a prophetic message to Samaria. There the Israelites had developed oppressive class cults, some of Amos’ most stinging rebuke was directed against social injustice. Amos 8:4–6 denounces the money grubbing attitudes of those who can hardly wait for the sabbath to end so they can go back to exploiting the poor. Both the resentment against the sabbath and the dishonest trade practices were abhorrent to God.

A contemporary of Amos, Isaiah lived and carried out his ministry in Jerusalem. In some of the most beautiful and comforting language of the Old Testament, Isaiah promises special blessings to eunuchs and foreigners who have joined themselves to the Lord and have kept the sabbath (Isaiah 56:3–8).

To the eunuchs, who cannot preserve their name through natural offspring, God promises: “I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (56:5). Eunuchs were not permitted to carry out priestly functions in Mosaic law, since they were blemished. The promise in Isaiah points to God’s gracious love that welcomes even eunuchs into his house, where they receive the heritage of God himself.

Foreigners, too, are given a precious heritage. First God assuages their fear of abandonment, in verse 3. “Do not fear that you will be cut off from me,” God says. He then promises a hearty and joyous welcome in his house, where they will serve him and minister to him just as his other children do. All of their sacrifices and offerings will be accepted (56:6–7). Every outcast in the world who turns to God, honoring the sabbath and holding fast to his covenant will receive the heritage of true children. These words were immeasurably comforting in Isaiah’s day and continue to be so today.

In another passage, 58:13–14, Isaiah makes a conditional promise to sabbath-keepers. This text is instructive in that it defines what sabbath means in attitudes of the heart. If the person ceases from pursuing his own interests, serving and honoring God instead, then he will find his delight in God and in so doing, will prosper and will receive the heritage of Jacob.

Isaiah also prophesies an eschatalogical fulfillment of the sabbath. In the day the glory of the Lord is revealed to “all flesh,” the day of the new heavens and new earth, everyone shall come and worship God from sabbath to sabbath (Isaiah 66:23). Life will flow from the very heart of sabbath rest, which is the unceasing rest of God himself.

Jeremiah warned the kings and leaders of Israel, shortly before the captivity, that sabbath-breaking would bring absolute destruction upon Jerusalem (Jeremiah 17:19–27). Israel callously profaned the sabbath, carrying on business as usual in order to make more profit. If only Israel would turn around and keep the sabbath, Jeremiah wept, they would ensure perpetual habitation and prosperity in Jerusalem. Such was not to be the case, though. Not long after uttering his oracle, Jerusalem was carried into captivity.

Ezekiel lamented the wanton sabbath-breaking of Israel as well, saying that the sabbaths were to be a sign between Israel and Yahweh, continually reminding her that Yahweh is God (Ezekiel 20:20). The only reason God did not wipe Israel out completely, as they deserved, was that he did not want his name profaned among the watching nations. God had established his covenant first with Abraham, then with Moses, promising to bring his people into a promised land. If he failed to do this even though Israel sinned and brought disaster on herself, he might look common (the meaning of) like any Canaanite god, as if he were impotent and could not keep his promise (Ezekiel 20:8b–26).

Like Isaiah, Ezekiel looked to the future when the eschatological fulfillment of the sabbath would find its expression in perfect sabbath observance (Ezekiel 46:1–12). The interpretation of this passage continues to trouble scholars. It is safe to say, though, that worship will be the center from which all activity flows in the eschaton.

New Testament Sabbath Meanings

Sabbath reforms were a large part of Nehemiah’s platform. Between the time of Nehemiah (ca. 400 BC), and Jesus, rabbinic interpretation of the sabbath became increasingly complex, while rank and file Jews endeavored to live more faithfully according to sabbath law. By the time of the Maccabees, the Roman army excused Jews from military service because they were virtually useless on the sabbath.[18] Seneca accused Jew of laziness for spending one day a week in idleness.[19] An example of interpretive excess may be found in Jubilees 50:8, which forbids sexual relations on the sabbath. Later on the stipulation was amended.[20]

Jesus came on the scene in the midst of sabbath excess. His radical interpretation of the sabbath as a day of healing and restoration was considered nothing short of blasphemous by his critics. Some of Jesus’ harshest condemnation of religious hypocrisy was reserved for those who perverted the sabbath into an intolerable burden.

All four gospels contain pericopae about the sabbath. The three synoptics share the story of Jesus and his disciples hungrily plucking grain while walking through a field on the sabbath. When Jesus is chastised by the religious leaders, his response hearkens back to David, who ate the forbidden Bread of the Presence on a sabbath. He also reminded them that priests routinely break the sabbath as they carry out their duties. The real issue is mercy, not religious ritual, he said. Then he made the outrageous statement that “the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath” (Matthew 12:1–8).

Following that encounter he entered the synagogue, where he healed a man with a withered hand. His explanation to livid critics was that “it is lawful to do good on the sabbath” (Matthew 12:12b). The Markan account describes Jesus angrily healing the man (Mark 3:1–5). (We cannot help but pause to reflect upon the surprising possibility of holy, healing, sabbath anger.) From that moment the Pharisees set about planning for Jesus’ destruction. God had gone too far.

Other sabbath healings include the woman whose back had been crippled for eighteen years, a malady Jesus attributed directly to Satan. Jesus regarded healing as a matter of plundering the enemy, restoring people from evil bondages. In this sense he was carrying out the spirit of sabbath found in Deuteronomy 5, which stresses liberation from bondage. Jesus said he was bringing a daughter of Abraham into freedom, an act that surely was more important than the legally permissible liberation of a trapped farm animal on the sabbath (Luke 13:10–17).

When religious critics challenged his healing of the lame man at the pool of Bethsaida, Jesus answered that he worked on the sabbath because his Father was working, and he only did what he saw his Father doing (John 5:1–24). By example and word, Jesus taught that it is consonant with the spirit of sabbath to participate in God’s work. The giving of eternal life is a work that the Father is continuously about, and it is a work that most fully expresses the meaning of sabbath. To enter into eternal life is to cease from one’s own striving.

Such was the sabbath interpretation given by the writer of Hebrews, as well. All of the sabbath teachings in the Pentateuch were valid in the time of the Old Covenant, but they pointed to the eternal reality of the New Covenant of Christ (Hebrews 3:7–4:11). Canaan was a type of sabbath rest which the first generation of Israelites missed because of the hardness of their hearts. Instead of obeying God, they rebelled, and could not enjoy a ceasing from their wandering. (3:11–19). Disobedience and unbelief regarding the true sabbath rest, Christ himself, continue to prevent people from entering into a ceasing from their spiritual struggles. Only as we believe the Good News, can we enter that rest.

“So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God: for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his” (Hebrews 4:9–11). To remain in the true sabbath rest is to abide in a state of worship, honoring God with one’s entire being. The sabbath life is one that no longer profanes what is holy, distinguishing between secular and sacred. Instead, it is a life of humility and obedience, a perpetual resting in God’s grace.

This is the capstone of creation—the sabbath rest in Christ himself. According to Leviticus 16:29–34, the Day of Atonement was the “complete sabbath,” because it gave people a ceasing from their sins. They were cleansed and forgiven in God’s sight. Jesus was the true Paschal lamb, whose sacrificial death fulfilled what the animal sacrifices only pointed to. The complete sabbath, the complete cleansing, healing, and rest, are found in Christ alone.

Conclusion

What are we to make of sabbath laws today? Since we honor the Ten Commandments as binding for all time, it holds that sabbath-keeping is still a serious matter. As we have seen, Christ is the fulfillment of the sabbath, so it is possible to interpret the sabbath spiritually and reduce or eliminate the ancient tradition of ceasing from one’s work. That is the unintentional acting out of the commandment by many Christians. Yet God had wholistic purposes in mind when he instituted the sabbath. There is the matter of playing and resting. We have also seen that attention to social justice is part of the sabbath plan. Finally, there is the celebratory element of sabbath that is nothing less than a party.

We Christians still have lessons to learn from Jewish sabbath traditions. Rabbi Solomon Goldman extolls the virtues of sabbath, likening the day to a beautiful bride. Sabbath, he says, is to be a time of eating food “as rich and tasty as one’s pocket and digestion will allow. “[21] It should be a day of joy and delight, when friends and family gather for happy fellowship. Rabbi Goldman goes on to say that “work” is defined not by the amount of energy expended, but by the degree of productivity involved. Therefore, work that is non-productive is quite acceptable on the sabbath.[22]

The day of the week for sabbath observance has been a source of contention for Christians. An entire denomination, the Seventh Day Baptists, is based on the sole belief that Saturday, not Sunday, is the correct sabbath. “There is a purity of sabbath experience that cannot be found on any other day than God’s own day,” writes Herbert Saunders, a Seventh Day Baptist pastor.[23] While we admire Saunder’s commitment to what he believes, it is difficult to imagine that God hallows one day more than another, when Paul clearly writes in Romans 14:5 that the choosing of a special day or regarding all days alike is a matter of human prerogative.

Increasing numbers of books and articles are being written from an evangelical position, suggesting creative ways to experience the sabbath. Marva Dawn’s Keeping the Sabbath Wholly, (Eerdmans, 1989), focuses on the four themes of ceasing, resting, embracing, and feasting. Outlines for ways families can enjoy the sabbath may be found in Karen Burton Mains’ Making Sunday Special, (Word, 1987). Pastors and other church workers will find Eugene Peterson’s “The Pastor’s Sabbath”, (Leadership, Spring 1985), helpful.

The experience of the sabbath, while lived in a context of community, is personal. Sabbath encompasses all of one’s life: work, relationships, physicality, spirituality, time, and space. The message of the sabbath is nothing less than a miniature message of the entire Bible. We are created to enjoy God, to rest in him, not in ourselves. As we live and move from a sabbath perspective, celebrating what God has done, we shall find healing and renewal all the days of our lives.

Selected Bibliography

• Andreason, Niels-Erik. Rest and Redemption. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1978.
• Boice, James Montgomery. Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982.
• Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation Series. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
• Campolo, Tony. The Kingdom of God is a Party. Waco, TX: Word, 1990.
• Dawn, Marva J. Keeping the Sabbath Wholly. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.
• Goldman, Solomon. A Guide to the Sabbath. London: Jewish Chronicle Publications, 1967.
• Jewett, Paul K. The Lord’s Day. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.
• Johnston, Robert K. The Christian at Play. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.
• LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.
• Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books, 1987.
• New Bible Dictionary. 2d ed. Eds. J. D. Douglas, F. F. Bruce, J. I. Packer, et al. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1982.
• Robbins, Guy L. And in the Seventh Day. American University Studies. Series VII Theology and Religion. Vol. 36. New York: Peter Lang, 1987.
• Roop, Eugene F. Genesis. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1987.
• Saunders, Herbert E. The Sabbath Symbol of Creation and Redemption. Plainfield, NJ: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1970.
• Sayers, Dorothy L. The Mind of the Maker. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1941. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1987.

Notes

1. New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas and F. F. Bruce, eds., et al (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1982), 487.
2. Guy L. Robbins, And in the Seventh Day (New York: Peter Lang, 1987), 217.
3. Niels-Erik Andreason, Rest and Redemption (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1978), 1.
4. Ibid., 7.
5. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 35.
6. Robbins, Seventh Day 178.
7. Robert K. Johnston, The Christian at Play (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 89.
8. Ibid., 34.
9. Ibid., 92-3.
10. Madeline L’Engle, Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art, (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1980), 58.
11. Tony Campolo, The Kingdom of God is a Party, (Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 17.
12. Ibid.
13. Andreason, Rest, 54.
14. Ibid., 13.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., 14.
17. Ibid., 17.
18. Johnston, Play, 88.
19. Ibid.
20. Andreason, Rest, 95.
21. Solomon Goldman, A Guide to the Sabbath, (London: Jewish Chronicle Publications, 1971), 15.
22. Ibid., 24.
23. Herbert E. Saunders, The Sabbath: Symbol of Creation and Redemption, (Plainfield, NJ: American Sabbath Tract Society, 1970), 13.

Satan's Victory over the Church & CERN... Come out of Religion & Dwell i...

X-Factor Winner Reveals World's Secret Religion

Sex education

by THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE

July 2009 

Contents

• “Disastrous” teen pregnancy strategy, says professor 
• Current sex education laws 
• What is your child learning? 
• Girls growing up too quickly 
• Promoting marriage in school 
• Kids to chat about anal and oral sex 
• Condom credit cards for 13s 

More of the same planned despite ‘safer sex’ failure

The Government is set to fall woefully short of its target of halving the number of teenage pregnancies by 2010.[1] 

Sexually Transmitted Infections have increased amongst the young. So have teenage abortions. 

A number of children’s groups have raised serious concerns about the increasing sexualisation of young girls. 

Against this backdrop the Government has announced it intends to make Sex and Relationship Education compulsory in schools, starting at primary level. 

Parents’ right to remove their children from lessons is likely to remain, but the Government says it will keep the opt-out under constant review. 

The groups that have been pushing for mandatory sex education have demonstrated questionable judgment in the resources which they have been recommending to children (see back page). 

Compulsory sex ed for primary schools inside 

The Government plans to introduce compulsory Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) in England in September 2011, within the new National Curriculum subject Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education.[2] 

Under the proposals, parents will retain the right to withdraw their children from SRE lessons, but the Government will keep the opt-out under review. Parents who withdraw their child will be expected to provide them with alternative sex education.[3] 

The plans require primary schools to teach about body parts and puberty, “sex within the context of caring and stable relationships”, civil partnerships, marriage and separation.[4] 

Topics for secondary schools include unintended pregnancy, contraception and STIs, as well as the “role and benefits” of civil partnerships. Marriage, family life and parenting also feature.[5] 

School governors may still determine their school’s approach to SRE, taking account of parents’ views and the school’s ethos, but must ensure the specified topics are covered.[6] 

The Government has also pledged that all initial teacher training courses will involve some focus on PSHE.[7] 

Current sex education laws: 

Education Act 1996 

Sex education is currently not compulsory in primary schools. However, every primary and secondary school must have a sex education policy, prepared by the governors of the school in consultation with parents. Copies must be made available free of charge to any parent who requests one. The law requires secondary schools to teach the biological facts about sex within the science curriculum and to provide sex education which covers sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS. This sex education must encourage pupils to “have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life”. Parents may request that their children be excused from receiving sex education at school, and the school must fulfil all such requests. 

Learning and Skills Act 2000 and SRE Guidance 

In July 2000 the Government issued guidance on Sex and Relationship Education (SRE), to which a school’s head teacher and governors must have regard when establishing the school’s sex education policy. This guidance says SRE must teach children “about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children”. It also says: “Schools should ensure that pupils are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate, having regard to the age and cultural background of the pupils concerned”. Further recommendations in the guidance are “good practice”, but not mandatory.

Under 16s

England and Wales (2007)

8,196 conceptions[8]

4,376 abortions[9]

Teen pregnancy strategy is “disastrous” says professor

The Government’s Teenage Pregnancy Strategy has been labelled as “absolutely disastrous” by Professor David Paton of Nottingham University. 

He points to figures showing that since the strategy began teenage STI rates have increased, and the rate of decline in pregnancy rates has slowed.[10] 

Professor Paton has criticised the mixed messages conveyed to children when they are advised to delay sex yet provided with contraception. 

He says, “The danger with this sort of approach is that it can lead to an increase in risky sexual behaviour amongst some young people. 

“There is now overwhelming evidence that such schemes are simply not effective in cutting teenage pregnancy rates.”[11]

What is your child learning? 

Parents have a right to know what resources their child’s school is using in Sex and Relationship Education (SRE), and to object if they are not entirely happy. 

Sadly, few parents are aware of the kind of materials schools are encouraged to use in SRE lessons. Many resources recommended by local health or education authorities feature explicit content and affirm all forms of sexual behaviour as morally equal. 

A Christian Institute investigation published in 2003 found numerous examples of inappropriate classroom resources including: 

• A lesson covering anal intercourse for primary schools; 
• Teacher-led discussions on sado-masochism, bondage and sex toys; 
• A video advising pupils to “try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with”.[12]

Parents should ask to see and review the resources being used, not just rely on assurances from the school. 

If parents feel their school’s SRE policy is unsuitable they still have the right to withdraw their child from sex education lessons.

Young girls forced to grow up too quickly 

Girls are being “trained to become sexual objects” by the widespread use of sexual imagery in society, the NSPCC warned last year.[13] 

A consumer watchdog raised similar concerns earlier this year that ‘sex kitten’ t-shirts for six-yearolds and Playboy pencil cases were helping “make sex and pornography normal” to youngsters.[14] 

Campaigners blame teen magazines for encouraging early sexual activity[15], while a disturbing new trend has seen teenage girls producing sexually explicit images and distributing them by mobile phone. 

“Girls will do things on webcams to entertain boys,” said one 15-year-old during a recent study.[16] 

A report from Girl-guiding UK and the Mental Health Foundation found last year that young girls are suffering from the pressure to have premature sex and wear clothes that are too old for them. 

“We are forcing our young people to grow up too quickly,” said the Foundation’s Dr Andrew McCulloch.[17]

Promoting marriage in school

Sex education should teach about the importance of marriage. The public and legal commitment of one man to one woman provides a stable, safe and enduring environment for sexual intimacy and the raising of children. 

Multiple sexual partners or sex without commitment is not only medically more risky but often leads to emotional heartbreak and a range of negative outcomes for any children raised outside a married family unit. 

A weight of socio-economic research shows that marriage is the leading environment for raising children even when other factors such as class, finance and education have been accounted for. 

The Government’s current information leaflet for parents says SRE is about “the importance of marriage for family life”.[18]

Yet sex education material is often ambivalent on the issue. It is crucial that the overhaul of the curriculum does not diminish the benefits of marriage or fail to tell pupils of the damage that can be done when marriage is undermined. 

Kids, 7, to chat about anal and oral sex

The Government wants to make SRE mandatory for primary schools. Resources for primary schools have been available for some time. This one, The Primary School Sex and Relationships Education Pack, is currently recommended by East Sussex Council.[19]

One lesson on “sexual language” is aimed at children aged seven and older. They are given definitions of sexual acts and are asked to match them to the right name.[20] 

Abortion video 

The FPA, a key player in the sex education lobby, promoted a video to 14-year-olds saying health risks associated with abortion are mere “myths”.[21] 

It did so in spite of the Royal College of Psychiatrists warning that “ onsent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information regarding the possible risks and benefits to physical and mental health.”[22]

Condom credit cards

A new Government strategy will see boys of 13 issued with “credit cards” allowing them to pick up free condoms at places they congregate, such as football grounds and scout huts. 

Even younger boys could be given the cards at local councils’ discretion. 

The scheme is commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Boys will have to attend a lesson on “safe sex” before receiving the card. 

If they attend extra classes they will receive stamps on the card, which organisers hope will become a status symbol. 

The card scheme is designed to spare boys the embarrassment of visiting a sexual health clinic or asking for condoms in a pharmacy. Those taking part will not have to give their names or answer any personal questions. 

The scheme has already been adopted in some places but will soon go nationwide. 

Simon Blake, Chief Executive of Brook, the sexual health advisory service which drew up the plan, said it would make condom use “an everyday reality”.[23]

References

1. About the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, DCSF, see http://www. dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/ healthandwellbeing/ teenagepregnancy/about/strategy/ as at 1 July 2009
2. DCSF Press Release, Macdonald: Personal Social Health and Economic Education should be Compulsory, 2009/0078, 28 April 2009 
3. House of Commons, Hansard, 27 April 2009, cols 32-34WS 
4. Understanding Physical Development, Health and Wellbeing – Draft for Consultation, QCA, April 2009, pages 3 and 6 
5. The National Curriculum 2007, QCA, 2007, pages 248-249 and 258-259 
6. House of Commons, Op cit, cols 33-34WS 
7. Loc cit
8. ONS, Press Release, Conception Rate Increases among Under 18s, 26 February 2009 
9. Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2007, Department of Health, June 2008, Table 4a
10. Children and Young People Now, 18 March 2009, see http://www.cypnow.co.uk/ news/ByDiscipline/Health/891517/ Teenage-pregnancy-strategy-disastersays-academic/ as at 2 July 2009 
11. The Daily Telegraph, 3 January 2008
12. Sex lessons for kids, The Christian Institute, 2003, page 3
13. The Scotsman, 3 December 2008 
14. Daily Mail, 10 February 2009 
15. The Sunday Telegraph, 15 March 2009 
16. Press Association National Newswire, 30 March 2009 
17. A Generation Under Stress, Girlguiding UK, July 2008, pages 2 and 6
18. SRE & Parents, DfES, 2001 
19. See http://www.healthyschools.gov.uk/Uploads/ Resources/06bcf8e5-cea9-4679-b264-a2d4048253d3/ Primary%20school%20resources%20PSHE%20 June%2008.doc as at 7 July 2009 
20. Cohen, J, The Primary School Sex and Relationships Education Pack, Healthwise, 2001, pages 73, 101-103 
21. The Daily Telegraph, 26 November 2008 
22. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, Press Release, 14 March 2008
23. The Sunday Times, 7 June 2009, see http://www.timesonline. co.uk/tol/news/politics/ article6446355.ece as at 29 June 2009

Keep families free

by THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE

October 2009

Would you be happy if this happened to your child? 

Under new proposals a government official could enter your home, and question your child about what you teach them - and all without you being present. At the moment, this is being proposed for home-schooling families. But which families will be next? Children do not belong to the state. Even if you don’t home school, tell the Government to keep families free.  

Officials to get new powers over families 

Government officials will be given powers to question children without their parents being present, under new proposals for England. 

The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Badman Report that it should exert formal oversight over how parents teach their children at home. 

The proposals by Graham Badman, which mark a major shift in the official approach to home education, are subject to a public consultation which ends on 19 October.[1] 

Until now local authorities have been able to intervene where they suspect problems with individual families. But critics have pointed to the shift towards government control and intrusion into family life under the proposed new regime, with home-educated children subjected to far greater individual surveillance than children in state education. It may also contravene the right to private and family life under the Human Rights Act. 

Questioning kids without parents’ presence 

The Badman Report recommends that local authority officials should be given power to enter a family home, take a child into a room alone and question them about what his or her parents are doing. 

Other recommendations include requiring home educators annually to provide local authority staff with a “statement of approach to education” and a list of educational aims, and to register on a national register. Failure to register would be a criminal offence. 

Yet there is growing alarm in Britain at increasing government control of family life. Recent threats from Ofsted that parents who childmind one another’s children could be prosecuted, and a controversial registration scheme for volunteers (which could extend to parents who take their children’s friends to sports events), have faced nationwide criticism as an unjustified invasion of families.[2] In a similar way, the Badman Report mixes up child abuse with the issue of home education. Government Minister Baroness Morgan alleged at the outset of the review that home education could be used as a cover for “abuse”.[3] The Report suggested that there was a disproportionate level of abuse among home-educated children, but provided no documented evidence for this.[4] In fact local authorities already have sufficient powers to address child abuse in any home. 

Parents should have freedom of choice

In 1989 I left my job as a teacher in a state school to set up The Christian Institute. The need to promote good values in state schools and to protect children has been a major theme of our work right from the time the Institute was founded. 

Christian parents come to different conclusions about how to educate their children. The overwhelming majority choose state education; some are able to opt for the independent sector. A small but increasing number choose home education. They may do so because their child has been bullied or they judge that their local schools undermine the faith of the home. Surely all Christians would agree that parents should ultimately be free to make that choice. But the Badman Report seriously threatens that freedom. In the Bible it is parents who have the responsibility for raising children. Parents have a God-given authority over their children (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:4). Of course government must step in where child abuse is occurring, but that is a separate issue. 

Most parents can think of circumstances where they would take their children out of school and educate them at home, if only for a short time. The freedom to make this choice is being undermined. We must act now to defend it. 

—Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute 

US officials order girl to state school for being ‘too Christian’

Earlier this year a 10-yearold Christian girl in the USA was ordered to attend a government-run school. A judge made the order following claims by a local official that the girl, home educated by her mother, needed to begin to “critically evaluate multiple systems of belief”.[5] Her mother’s lawyer said officials believe the girl’s “religious beliefs are a bit too sincerely held” and need to be “mixed among other worldviews”.[6] 

What the law has always allowed

It has always been lawful for parents to educate their children at home. This right was enshrined in the landmark 1944 Education Act. Current government guidelines, based on this law and issued in 2007, are clear: “The responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. In England, education is compulsory, but school is not.”[7] 

Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 provides that: 

“The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable – 

(a) to his age, ability and aptitude, and 

(b) to any special educational needs either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.”

Home education falls under the definition of education ‘otherwise’. Case law has described ‘efficient’ education as an education that “achieves that which it sets out to achieve”, and a ‘suitable’ education as one that “primarily equips a child for life within the community of which he is a member, rather than the way of life in the country as a whole…”[8] 

At present local authorities can only intervene if they suspect a child is not receiving suitable education at home, and can issue a school attendance order. Parents have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State or can go to court.[9] 

References

1. Badman, G, Report to the Secretary of State on the Review of Elective Home Education in England, TSO, June 2009 
2. The Independent, 29 September 2009; The Daily Telegraph, 15 September 2009 
3. The Times, 20 January 2009 
4. Badman, G, Op cit, pages 31 and 32 
5. Wall Street Journal, 8 September 2009 
6. Alliance Defense Fund, Press Release, NH Court Orders HomeSchooled Child into GovernmentRun School, 26 August 2009
7. Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2007, page 4 
8. Loc cit 
9. Education Act 1996, Sections 437, 442 and 443

Adoption agencies shut under ‘equality’ laws: Religious adoption agencies are being told: change your beliefs or close

by THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE

 March 2010

A selection of newspaper cuttings from the national and religious press between 23 January 2007 and 21 December 2008.

Contents

1. Summary
2. Faith-based adoption agencies are among the best there are
3. The Sexual Orientation Regulations
4. What has happened to the faith-based agencies?
5. References

Summary 

Christians are concerned that the Government’s new Equality Bill will lead to more cases where the ‘rights’ of one group trump the freedoms of another, to the detriment of society as a whole. 

This has already been clearly illustrated by the impact the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 (SORs)[1] have had on Great Britain’s excellent faith-based adoption agencies. 

It is an orthodox Christian belief that the only acceptable context for sex is within marriage between one man and one woman, which is the best environment for raising children. Sexual activity outside this context, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is morally wrong and children raised outside marriage are disadvantaged. This belief may not be shared by everyone in society but it is the genuinely held orthodox belief of many who have the best interests of children and adults at heart. In an open society which embraces free speech and religious liberty, groups holding to this view should be free to organise themselves accordingly. This belief is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[2] 

In 2007, there were eleven Roman Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales, two in Scotland, and one Evangelical adoption and fostering agency in England. Thanks to the SORs, most of these agencies have been forced either to withdraw from adoption services entirely or abandon their religious ethos in order to continue. 

The SORs fail to allow religious adoption agencies the freedom to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs. Furthermore, society has lost an excellent service. Faith-based agencies have outstanding track records in helping to secure homes for some of the most difficult-to-place children. Yet these skills have been sacrificed in order to ensure that same-sex couples can use every single adoption agency in the country. An exemption for faith-based agencies would have retained their crucial expertise while also leaving homosexual couples free to use the vast majority of secular adoption services. The Equality Bill could be used to amend the law and to stop the closure of the religious adoption agencies. Alternatively, if nothing is done, the clear danger will be that the remaining faith-based adoption agencies could be litigated out of existence because they would be ill-equipped to defend themselves against well-funded legal actions.  

Faith-based adoption agencies are among the best there are 

Faith-based adoption agencies have played a key role for many years in finding homes for the most vulnerable children. Roman Catholic adoption agencies have accounted for 4 per cent of all adoptions each year,[3] including a third of those carried out by the voluntary adoption sector.[4] Like the rest of the voluntary sector, these agencies have taken a difficult mix of children, often described as ‘hard-to-place’. These have included children with severe medical problems, and over half have been in sibling groups.[5] For example, the Westminster Catholic Children’s Society has supported 3,000 children, young people and their families each year through a network of services.[6] It has also found families for about 15 ‘hard-to-place’ children who are disabled or have emotional or behavioural problems.[7] 

The closure of faith-based adoption agencies raises the concern that other adoption agencies will not have the capacity to pick up all the cases that would previously have been dealt with by faithbased services. Scotland had two Roman Catholic adoption agencies. Together they accounted for more than 20 per cent of all adoptions in the country each year.[8] One of the agencies has had to become entirely secular. The St David’s Children Society, which covered the three Welsh dioceses of Cardiff, Menevia and Wrexham, found new families for about 35 children a year – about 14 per cent of all cases in Wales.[9] Clearly these faith-based agencies have played a crucial role in finding homes for children. 

Children who are in care and waiting to be adopted have in many cases already experienced disruption in their family life and suffered difficult circumstances. For this reason it is crucially important that once they are adopted they feel that they are in a safe and reliable environment. To experience another family breakdown after being adopted would inevitably cause great trauma to a child. In this respect faith-based adoption agencies cannot be beaten. Roman Catholic adoption agencies have had breakdown rates among the lowest of any agencies in the country, with an average of 3.6 per cent.[10] 

Speaking about Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service, an Evangelical agency in the North East of England, Sharon Hodgson MP said in March 2009: 

“Cornerstone is an independent fostering and post-adoption support agency based in the north-east of England. It seeks to place children with Christian families and hopes to provide permanent homes for as many children as possible. That stability is important for many children, and the charity has helped many families in the north-east.”[11]  

The Sexual Orientation Regulations 

In 2007 the Government introduced the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) under the Equality Act 2006. These regulations outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services. The SORs are consolidated in the current Equality Bill. 

A flawed approach 

The primary beneficiary of adoption services should be the child, but under the SORs the process has been turned on its head. Many will no doubt argue that adoption agencies are within the scope of the SORs because of the assessment services they provide to potential adopters. But effectively the ‘supply’ of children has become the service, creating a virtual right to adopt and turning children into commodities. The focus of genuinely child-centred adoption services should always be children. Instead, the rights of children have been trumped by the rights of homosexual adults. Any agency which refuses to do homosexual adoptions becomes a target for closure. 

The fight for freedom of conscience 

The Government included an exception in the SORs for religious organisations. However, this exception does not apply to organisations acting under contract with a public authority. This raised immediate concerns for faith-based adoption agencies because they receive public funding. Serious implications were foreseen for those agencies whose religious ethos includes the belief that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong. Such agencies cannot in good conscience provide adoption services to homosexual couples because they believe that placing a child with them would be contrary to that child’s best interests.

Attempts were made by churches, other religious organisations and some politicians to have an exemption for faith-based adoption agencies inserted into the SORs. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, told BBC News 24: 

“I don’t see any reason why there cannot be an exception... It would seem to me it is not impossible to have these regulations but with a clause that allows a particular religious community to act according to its principles.”[12] 

A survey of more than half of the 40 Roman Catholic politicians in the Government showed that the majority supported an opt-out to allow Roman Catholic adoption agencies to operate according to the teaching they were founded on.[13] Tony Blair originally seemed to favour an exception for faith-based adoption agencies.[14] But many spoke out claiming that no exemptions should be included. Lord Falconer told the BBC: 

“We have committed ourselves to anti-discrimination law – on the grounds of sexual orientation – and it is extremely difficult to see how you can be excused from anti-discrimination law on the grounds of religion.”[15] 

Tony Blair eventually bowed to pressure from the gay rights lobbyists. He said: 

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public-funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination.”[16]  

A stay of execution In January 2007 the Government announced that there would be no exemptions in the SORs for faith-based adoption agencies.[17] Instead the Government said they would have until the end of 2008 to comply with the SORs. Speaking for the Government, Ruth Kelly said: 

“Our approach will ensure that nobody will be required to act in a way that contravenes their core religious beliefs, but where religious organisations enter into an agreement to provide services to the wider community, on behalf of and under contract to a public authority, the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people to have equal access to those services comes to the fore.”[18] 

If faith-based adoption agencies wanted to continue operating in the same way, they could only do so by acting in contravention of the core religious beliefs underpinning their work. The SORs left the 13 Roman Catholic adoption agencies and one Evangelical adoption and fostering service with a stark choice to make by the end of 2008: change your beliefs, or close. 

In January 2007 Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service wrote to the Prime Minister calling for protection from the SORs. According to its trust deed Cornerstone provides “a high quality adoption and fostering child care service according to Christian principles.”[19] This object is met by Cornerstone having a requirement, contained within their charitable instrument, that they restrict placing children through the charity to practising Evangelical Christians. 

Following a meeting of carers, Trustees and staff, The Chairman of Trustees, Robin Singleton, said in February 2007: 

“Cornerstone was founded as an agency for Bible believing Christians who want to provide a ‘forever family’ to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. By any measure Cornerstone is a very successful agency with outstanding outcomes for children. In our 7-year history more than half of the children have been adopted by their foster carers and our breakdown rate is exceptionally low. 

“We are deeply concerned that our freedom to provide this service within a faith-based organisation is being denied. Cornerstone provides a unique service in the North East where the faith of its foster and adoptive carers is understood, supported and valued. Carers come to us in preference to other agencies for this reason. Other carers in society can readily have their needs met by an abundance of other providers. This lack of tolerance of Christians expressing their faith through service provision is of real concern and an outrageous infringement of our freedom.”[20] 

Impact of the SORs 

The 14 faith-based adoption agencies made a crucial contribution to adoption services in Great Britain, and it is not as though their existence would prevent homosexual couples adopting children. A homosexual couple wishing to adopt would have the choice of numerous other agencies, even if faith-based groups were given the freedom to restrict their services according to the teachings of their religion. Instead, faith-based adoption agencies have been told to either comply with gay rights or withdraw their services, which is really no choice at all. 

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, said in February 2007: 

“For very obvious reasons I happen to believe that faith is a good not a bad thing, so I think in the end we never want to reach a situation where people who do have a religious faith feel in any sense that they are being shut out of either the political system or being able to provide a great service to people in a faith-based way.”[21] 

But this is precisely what has happened. Offering adoption services to homosexual couples is not compatible with orthodox religious beliefs. With no exemption for religious adoption agencies, how can these groups offer their services ‘in a faith-based way’? The SORs have driven some agencies to forfeit their links with the denomination which set them up, while others are still battling for the liberty to maintain their ethos as they provide their exceptional services to vulnerable and needy children. 

Where are the atheist adoption agencies? 

It is relevant in this context to point out that there are no adoption agencies with an explicitly atheist ethos. Atheism does not seem to prompt the establishing of public-spirited organisations such as adoption agencies. Faith, on the other hand, clearly underpins some of the most successful agencies in the country. Yet these agencies are being forced to abandon the very ethos that led to their creation. Although faith has contributed so much to society in this sphere, it is being forced out in favour of what amounts in practice to atheism. Faith-based adoption agencies are being coerced into jettisoning their faith.

What has happened to the faith-based agencies? 

SECULARISED: 

1. The diocese of Nottingham has cut ties with the Catholic Children’s Society (Nottingham), which will now offer its services to homosexuals.[22] It has changed its name to ‘Faith in Families’.[23] 

2. St Francis Children’s Society has severed ties with the diocese of Northampton. It is now a secular institution with a ‘broad-based’ Christian character.[24] 

3. The Catholic Children’s Society which works in the three dioceses of Arundel and Brighton, Southwark and Portsmouth has split from the Roman Catholic Church and three Roman Catholic Bishops on the board of trustees have resigned. It is now called the Cabrini Children’s Society.[25] 

4. The Clifton diocese (Bristol) has split from the Catholic Children’s Society, which is now called the Clifton Children’s Society.[26] 

5. St David’s Children Society in Wales (and Herefordshire) has cut links with the three dioceses in Wales so as to comply with the SORs.[27]

6. Catholic Caring Services in Lancaster has decided to break with the diocese in order to comply with the SORs despite the Bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O’Donoghue, protesting strongly against this.[28] Bishop O’Donoghue had urged the agency to take a stand. He has since resigned as a trustee and the agency is now known as Caritas Care.[29] 

7. St Andrew’s Children’s Society in Scotland was already independent of the Roman Catholic Church and will accept homosexuals. As a consequence, Cardinal O’Brien resigned from his position as President of the society.[30] 

8. Nugent Care in Liverpool has established a policy on assessing adopters which appears to accept homosexuals. The criterion specified with regard to joint adoption is simply that the couple are in a “stable relationship.”[31]

9. The Father Hudson’s Society in Birmingham tried to change its charitable objectives but was turned down by the Charity Commission.[32] It joined with Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) in appealing the decision, but withdrew its appeal in April 2009.[33] The Society has since handed its adoption recruitment and assessment work over to a new separate charity which accepts homosexual couples as joint adopters.[34] 

CLOSED: 

10. The Catholic Children’s Rescue Society of Salford has pulled out of adoption services altogether.[35] It still provides a fostering service.[36] 

11. Westminster Catholic Children’s Society tried to amend its constitution but was turned down by the Charity Commission.[37] After the Charity Tribunal decision in Catholic Care’s case (see page 17), the Society announced its withdrawal from assessing potential adopters in June 2009.[38] 

FIGHTING: 

Fighting for a way to remain Roman Catholic without falling foul of the law: 

12. Catholic Care, in the diocese of Leeds, attempted to change its charitable objects in order to continue carrying out its full range of services in accordance with its Roman Catholic ethos. The Charity Commission refused to allow the change and Catholic Care appealed to the Charity Tribunal. In June 2009 the Tribunal ruled that the agency must consider gay couples as potential adopters.[39] Catholic Care’s appeal against this decision was heard in the High Court in early March 2010.[40] 

BUSINESS AS USUAL: 

13. St Margaret’s Adoption and Child Care Society in Scotland has successfully changed its charitable objects to allow it to continue to operate as an adoption agency in full accordance with its Roman Catholic ethos.[41] 

14. According to its charitable instrument Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service can only place children with Evangelical Christians. Cornerstone continues to require prospective adopters to adhere to the Evangelical Christian faith. 

References 

1. Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 
2. The Christian Institute & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 66, para. 50 
3. BBC News, 25 January 2007, see http://news. bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6297107.stm as at 2 April 2009 
4. House of Commons, Hansard, 21 February 2007, col. 110WH 
5. House of Commons, Hansard, 21 February 2007, col. 108WH 
6. Catholic Children’s Society (Westminster), About Us, see http://www.cathchild.org.uk/ about/index.php as at 3 April 2009 
7. The Catholic Herald, 18 July 2008 
8. The Catholic Herald, 28 November 2008 
9. The Catholic Herald, 19 September 2008 
10. House of Commons, Hansard, 21 February 2007, col. 110WH 11 House of Commons, Hansard, 
11. March 2009, col. 111WH 
12. Press Association National Newswire, 24 January 2007 
13. The Daily Telegraph, 27 January 2007 
14. Press Association National Newswire, 23 January 2007 
15. The Guardian, 23 January 2007 
16. The Times, 30 January 2007 
17. The Daily Telegraph, 25 January 2007 
18. Press Association National Newswire, 7 March 2007 
19. Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service, Charitable Objects, see http://www.charity-commission.gov. uk/ShowCharity/RegisterOfCharities/ CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityN umber=1114213&SubsidiaryNumber=0 as at 16 April 2009 
20. The Christian Institute, Press Release, Christian fostering agency faces closure under Sexual Orientation Regulations, 5 February 2007 
21. House of Commons, Select Committee on Liaison, Minutes of Evidence, 6 February 2007, Q56 
22. The Catholic Herald, 25 April 2008 
23. Families are Best, Launch of Faith in Families, see http://www.ccsnotts.co.uk/pdf/ launch.pdf as at 16 April 2009 
24. The Catholic Herald, 25 April 2008 
25. The Universe, 10 August 2008 
26. The Catholic Herald, 12 December 2008 
27. The Catholic Herald, 10 October 2008 
28. The Observer, 21 December 2008 
29. Third Sector Online, 11 March 2009 
30. Scottish Catholic Observer, 21 November 2008; Scottish Catholic Observer, 28 November 2008 
31. Nugent Care, Do I Have to be Married or in a Relationship?, see http://www.nugentcare. org/index.php/domestic_adoption/frequently_ asked_questions/ as at 5 March 2010
32. The Catholic Herald, 10 October 2008; The Catholic Herald, 21 November 2008 
33. Charity Tribunal Current Cases, see http:// www.charity.tribunals.gov.uk/currentcases. htm as at 23 April 2009 
34. Father Hudson’s Society, Adoption Support, see http://www.fatherhudsons.org.uk/index. php/site/familyplacementsadoption/adoption_ homepage/ as at 5 March 2010; Adoption Focus, Criteria for Prospective Adopters, see http://www.adoption-focus.org.uk/how_to_ adopt/criteria.htm as at 5 March 2010 
35. The Catholic Herald, 18 July 2008; Catholic Children’s Rescue Society, What We Do: What is Adoption, see http://www.ccrsorg. co.uk/what-we-do/adoption.php as at 2 April 2009 
36. Catholic Children’s Rescue Society, What We Do: Fostering Service, see http://www. ccrsorg.co.uk/what-we-do/fostering.php as at 8 March 2010 
37. The Catholic Herald, 21 November 2008 
38. Daily Mail, 20 June 2009 
39. Daily Mail, 3 June 2009 
40. The Daily Telegraph, 1 March 2010; The Times, 4 March 2010 
41. The Catholic Herald, 21 November 2008