A Christmas detail I've long overlooked

I have sat through dozens of carol concerts, Christmas services and festive homilies in my lifetime. I know the story of Jesus' birth, and the surrounding events, inside out. I suspect most of us who have grown up in Christian homes (or even around families that only go to church at Christmas) feel the same way. What new thing are we possibly going to hear this Christmas that we haven't heard before?

But the Bible is a wonderful book. No matter how many times you read it there is often something new to find. Yet, I am always surprised when I see something new in a passage that is particularly familiar to me. Though this is a detail that many of you have probably noted long ago (and therefore can't understand my wonder), here is something that only just struck me this year.

In Matthew's account of Jesus' birth, he writes:

Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” 9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. 11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. 12 And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way. (Mt 2:7-12)

I wonder if you have seen the new thing too (which may not be new to you)? It's not the lack of mention of three wise men - everybody knows that old red herring!

Perhaps some of Matthew's following comments might help. He says in 2:16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men."

Can you see it now?

I knew about Herod's command to kill all the children in Bethlehem under 2. I knew about Mary & Joseph fleeing to Egypt so they wouldn't be caught up in the melee. What I (rather unthinkingly) failed to clock was the reason for Herod's decision to aim for everyone under 2 (I know right!? How dense am I?!)

Here are two little details that I have failed to notice for the best part of 30 years. Mt 2:11 clearly tells us Jesus was found by the wise men in a house. The wise men - despite all the Christmas imagery to the contrary - were not rocking up the day Jesus was born to give him presents. Well, granted, there would be at least a few days between their visit.

But, Mt 2:16 makes clear that Herod took a while to realise he had been tricked by the wise men and sought to kill all males under 2 "according to the time he had ascertained from the wise men". In other words, the wise men were visiting Jesus up to any time within 2 years after his birth. That's why Herod goes mad and wants to kill all males in Bethlehem under 2 - this usurper could be any age within that bracket and this is the least messy option to deal with him.

Anyway, there you go, a small Christmas detail I've never really noticed. Jesus was probably just under two when the wise men saw him and Herod got after him. He wasn't in a manger, he was in a house. Life had returned to some normality (for nearly two years) before the wise men rocked up.

It's not exactly hidden away in the account at all. Staggering what an unquestioning look at Christmas imagery will do for you!

Media silence lifted now Gosnell found guilty of murder

Now that Dr Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of murder, the media silence surrounding this case has been lifted and the story is beginning to make headlines. Cranmer comments that this case once again raises serious questions about when life actually begins, noting that Pennsylvania and the UK are exceptional. He states "not everywhere has a 24-week limit... Across Europe, the upper limits are: France 12, Germany 12, Italy 12, Belgium 12, Bulgaria 12, Denmark 12, Czech Republic 12, Greece 12, Hungary 12, Luxembourg 12, the Netherlands 13, Poland 12, Slovakia 12 and Sweden, the most ‘liberal’, 18."

Cranmer is quite right to raise these issues. He is equally correct in highlighting the moral inconsistency, pointed out by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, that asserts "the pregnant woman who smokes or drinks heavily is widely regarded as guilty of infringing the rights of her unborn child; yet at the same time, with no apparent sense of incongruity, there is discussion of the possibility of the liberty of the pregnant woman herself to perform the actions that will terminate a pregnancy." Indeed, he is most likely correct that "the nation cries out for a latter-day Shaftsbury or Wilberforce in Parliament who will bang on about this barbarism ad nauseam, day after day, week after week, until something is done about it."

I was struck by one particular comment in the Guardian. Having stated that both sides of the abortion debate "endorsed the verdict", the paper offered statements from a pro-life organisation and a pro-choice group. Unsurprisingly, the pro-life spokesman endorsed the verdict and claimed the result "helped more people realize what abortion is really about" and went on to state that he hoped this would lead to further legislation reducing the number of terminations. So far, so expected.

However, the paper claimed "supporters of legalized abortion said the case foreshadows what poor, desperate young women could face if abortion is driven underground with more restrictive laws". Whilst that comment may be unsurprising, the argument is woeful. Specifically, the argument fails because this did happen without "restrictive laws". Indeed, this happened in a place with higher legal limits and more relaxed attitudes to abortion than much of Europe, and did so without driving anybody underground but to a known, community abortion clinic. This is not foreshadowing what could happen under tighter legislation but is the reality of what has happened under current legislation. Indeed, such was the work of Dr Gosnell that even the comparatively "liberal" Pennsylvanian abortion laws were flouted.

More interesting still, president of Naral pro-choice America  - Ilyse G Hogue - stated "Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty and will get what he deserves. Now, let's make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care". This doesn't sound like somebody who has "endorsed the verdict". Indeed, her inference appears to be that Gosnell's main crime - though, nevertheless, still a hideous one - was the poor care for the women at his clinic. However, the verdict found him guilty of the first-degree murder of three children and was not primarily a result of his lack of care for the women in his clinic. Whilst Gosnell's lack of care for the women at his clinic was heinous indeed, it is not the primary atrocity. Ilyse Hogue passes no comment on the verdict of murder and sees vindication for these women as allowing further such abhorrent practices to occur, so long as it happens in a clean and safe environment.

Kermit Gosnell has now been found guilty of three charges of first-degree murder, infanticide, racketeering and more than 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania's abortion laws by performing third-term abortions or failing to counsel women 24 hours in advance. He showed no regard for the life of the children he terminated, the women who came to his clinic, the employees working for him nor the authorities to whom he was subject. 

Whatever side of the abortion debate one falls, these particular crimes cannot be seen as anything other than horrific. Nor can they be couched in terms of what happens under restrictive legislation. Indeed, these crimes occurred in violation of existing legislation that, in comparison to much of Europe, is "liberal". It may be a sign of what happens when legislation is poorly implemented, it may be what happens when legislation is not enforced or it may be what happens when legislation is too permissive. To be sure, there are many possible reasons and opposing sides of the debate are likely to cling to those that reinforce their predispositions. However, what this case most certainly does not show is this is what happens when restrictive laws are enforced.

Media silence on Gosnell makes a mockery of robust journalism and has knock-on effects for free speech

Although not widely reported in the mainstream media, the Gosnell infanticide case has been circulating in the blogosphere. If you are unaware of the details, there is a brief outline here.

The media silence has also been documented in the blogosphere. For example, see here, here and here. In the UK, the story was carried by the Daily Mail and Telegraph, limited to a single article by the BBC (which doesn't appear to have been linked to the homepage and only comes up with an active search on 'Gosnell') and ignored altogether by the Independent, Guardian and Times. As to how Christians ought to respond to this, Andy's Study has made some helpful suggestions.

The media silence on this makes a mockery of robust journalism. It is staggering that papers such as the Guardian will run stories like this without running stories like this. Such reporting hardly supports their advertisement which runs the tagline "the whole picture".

Worse still is the knock-on effect such journalism has on free speech. Whilst we pay lip service to free speech in this country, we increasingly remove topics from the agenda altogether that are simply not up for discussion. When the media refuse to run particular stories, they encourage this removal of discussion from the public forum and push alternative voices to the fringes. In many cases, these alternative views do not go away altogether but, being pushed out of the mainstream, find other outlets without any robust discussion of the view to hold them to account. In many respects, this makes it far easier for such voices to win people to their cause.

President Obama said in an address to the United Nations ‘…laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech’. Rowan Atkinson said something similar in his support for the Reform Section 5 campaign. He commented:

For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed... if we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue and that must include the right to insult or to offend.

However, media refusal to report legitimate stories, even where they do not tie in to their predisposed agenda, have real knock-on effects for free speech, those who may disagree and, consequently, those who agree as well.

Disabled people 'should be put down' because they 'cost the council too much money'

A Cornish councillor has claimed that disabled people should be 'put down' because they 'cost the council too much money'. The story is reported on This is Cornwall, though appears to stem from an incident in October 2011. The Guardian reports that Disability Cornwall and Scope have responded to the comments. 

Cllr Brewer has apologised but refuses to resign. As an Independent, he has no party from which to be expelled nor any party leader summarily calling for his dismissal. However, the chairman of Disability Cornwall, Steve Paget MBE, is demanding Cllr Brewer's resignation claiming "he is supposed to be an elected member representing public views and acting on behalf of the public. How anyone can come out with that is just shocking". A spokesman for Scope stated "to hear such an ill-judged and insensitive statement from a councillor is deeply disturbing and demonstrates that they are clearly not fit for office".

However, as in my previous comments here, one is hard pressed to argue that Cllr Brewer is articulating anything other than a consistent view. As Cranmer points out:

His [Cllr Brewer] view is precisely that which our progressive society manifests toward the disabled in the womb - right up to full-term. There is no 24-week limit when it comes to 'getting rid' of those who can't walk, talk, see, hear or catch a ball... you'll even find doctors who will neatly dispose of a baby with a hare lip, for that's an undoubted disability. The glorious achievements of our Paralympians have done nothing to change this.

Disability is a profound burden on parents (emotionally) and on society ('cost too much'), so our 'representatives and elected members' have indeed determined that they may be 'put down'. This has nothing to do with women's rights over their bodies, or with the question of when 'independent' life actually begins. It is a simple fact that society allows disability as a reason for abortion way beyond the 24-week period for the able-bodied, and that implies that disabled people, or the lives of disabled people, are less worthwhile than the lives of 'normal' people.

One must conclude that it is the position of Scope and Disability Cornwall that is inconsistent here. For, no calls have been made to have this statute 'confined to the history books' nor does it lead them to call this provision 'deeply disturbing' and denounce all those who uphold it as 'clearly not fit for office'.

Is it sheer inconsistency or merely that those who advocate this statute don't state it quite as crassly as Cllr Brewer?

* Collin Brewer has since resigned 

After-birth abortion & moral consistency

It was recently reported in the Guardian that some abortion clinics have been offering sex-selection terminations. This led to outrage from pro-life and pro-choice groups and drew criticism from the Health Secretary who condemned the actions as illegal and 'morally wrong'. At the time, I argued that the moral outrage of the Health Secretary and pro-choice groups seemed odd and misplaced. For my thoughts see 'Clinics grants sex-selection abortions'.


Since then two academics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, have published a paper titled 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?'. They argue we should now accept the killing of newborn infants for any of the same reasons we currently accept as justifying abortion. They aver that newborn infants are not real people because an "actual person" is one capable of having plans and aims. Just like a foetus, a newborn child is incapable of making plans and aims thus it is only a "potential person". Therefore, though pain can harm the newborn, death cannot.


It is hardly surprising, given the heat generated by the existence of sex-selection abortions, that this paper has also been roundly condemned. However, as with sex-selection abortions, the condemnation of this paper seems somewhat morally inconsistent. Andrew Brown at the Guardian, argues:

The equation of abortion with infanticide is central to the rhetoric of many anti-abortionists. It is something that most pro-choicers emphatically reject. For them, the moral justification of abortion lies in the fact that an embryo is not a human being, whereas a newborn baby is. The moral status of a foetus changes over time in the womb, and while there will always be arguments about when the change should be recognised, there is wide agreement that a time limit on abortion is morally significant.

It certainly seems to follow from Giubilini and Minerva's reasoning that there is nothing wrong with sex-selective infanticide. There's no doubt that having a child of the wrong sex can be frightfully inconvenient for its parents. So if it's all right to abort a girl for her chromosomes, why not kill the newborns as well?

The truth of the matter, however, is that Giubilini and Minerva are at least being morally consistent, even if morally repugnant. If it is acceptable to terminate a foetus; it must also be acceptable to kill newborn children. As Brown states:

Some modern utilitarian philosophers have argued that there is no huge moral difference between a baby about to be born, at the top of the birth canal, and the same baby when it has emerged into the world. I first heard this from John Harris, at Manchester University. But the conclusion he drew was not that we ought to kill newborns.

But how can we argue anything else if 'moral status' is the basis upon which we justify terminations? Indeed, we recognise in law that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 (and we are considered to be harsh compared to most countries in Europe). Therefore, given that we acknowledge children under 10 cannot be legally responsible for their actions, Giubilini and Minerva could indeed extend their theory to cover all minors (certainly those under 10 at any rate).


For the Christian, the answer is clear. The moral case against termination is not based upon an ability to make plans and aims. The case for the Christian lies predominantly in the sixth commandment (Exo 20:13) for which there is no age defining cut off. Indeed, by right of being made in the image of God, all human beings are to be protected and we know that children are 'a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward (Psa 127:3)'.


Nevertheless, for a society that rejects this Christian view, how can they consistently denounce Giubilini and Minerva?