

And then here's the clanger... the real point of the address to the Law Service...
...talking about anti-discrimination legislation and how it may affect religious schools and indeed religious freedom. Thus, to take one case in point, why should a religious school have the right to appoint a religious gardener? Surely a person’s religion makes no difference to their capacity to carry out the function of a gardener? My colleague pointed to the difference in the way we answer the question ‘what are human beings?’ If you think of the job of the gardener in merely functional terms, as the work of an autonomous individual, earning a living among a lot of other autonomous human beings, there is no reason why it has to be a religious person. But if, following the idea of the image of God, you see the gardening as a vocation, a calling, the work of one who cultivates the earth as an image bearer, and if you connect the gardener with the very life of the community he or she serves, the outcome is different. The gardener is not merely an employee but a member of a body dedicated to the service of its members. I would want to employ a person who could pray for the students and who would model what it means to be made in the image of God. Even if you do not accept this vision of what it is to be human, I think you can at least see that it is noble and ennobling vision and that in the name of our religious freedom it is one that should be sustained, not diminished by a competing view posing as the only possible right one.

And I'd have thought that Christians like Peter Jensen who says biblical anthropology may lead to:
justice, fairness and responsibility, love, compassion, self-sacrifice and building community would welcome a lost soul into their wonderful Christian garden which is full of spiritual nutrients.
No comments:
Post a Comment