I DON'T WANT TO COMMIT MYSELF!

How many times have you heard someone say that? Maybe you have said it yourself. You want to help out at your son's Scout troop, or at his school, or with your local church or community organisation; but you don't want to get bogged down, committed, doing something every week so you might not be able just to up and do something else which might take your fancy at a moment's notice. You may believe your local area needs better security, but you don't want to commit yourself . Or you may feel you have a good relationship with your partner - you may even feel you want to move in with them - but you are not sure about the commitment involved in marriage. In actual fact, some men have been known to go all cool about a relationship when they discover their partner is pregnant. They are in for a groovy relationship, but not for the commitment of children. It's not quite so easy for the woman involved to duck out of the responsibility, though. She is often left holding the baby - literally!

  A whole generation, maybe more than one, has grown up expecting everything to be done for them by professionals paid to do the job. The idea of community service or duty has gone out of the window. Forty years ago, if a family moved into an area and found there was nothing for their children to do, the father might have started a Scout Troop, or the mother a Brownie pack. They would have put in the time spent running the activity and raising the funds voluntarily. Their own children benefited, and others were helped too. Indeed such people continued running their community projects long after their own children had grown up and left home, because they saw it as a way of putting something back into society to help pay back for what they had received. Now most parents do not even see the need to put in voluntary service when it is for the direct benefit of their own children. They appear to think it is "somebody else's" responsibility. I remember speaking to a lady who was a Group Scout leader, who mentioned she had recently tried to organise a fair to raise money for Scout funds. She asked some of the parents if they could run a stall, or provide something to sell, to raise money for their own children's Scout troop. The parents reply was, "That's not our job, that's what you are paid for!" In case any reader is unaware of the fact, Group Scout leaders are not paid. It is a purely voluntary role. And charitable organisations such as the Scouts rely very heavily on work done by parents and relatives to help raise funds.

  Maybe this is why Scouts and other voluntary organisations are declining It's not just Scouts, but also churches, youth clubs, social clubs, trade unions, and community and special interest groups of all shapes and sizes, or all creeds and none. Nobody wants to get committed. We have sold the dream of "having it all" so well, that now everybody wants to have it all, and wants to leave the responsibility to "someone else". Though who this mythical "someone else" is, no-one is too sure. And by the looks of things, they appear to be falling down on the job because the things that are left to "someone else" are just not getting done!

  Human society just cannot work this way. This is not a specifically religious point. Readers may well know I am a Methodist Minister, but this need for commitment is not an exclusively religious demand. All human society since the dawn of history has relied on voluntary service given by each member to the whole. Some non-religious societies have tried to legislate for this, with disastrous results, because voluntary service must be just that - voluntary. It cannot be forced, otherwise the positive power that comes from help freely given is lost and resentment ensues. Society has also relied at all times of its history and in all places on the principle of commitment to relationships with other human beings and to society as a whole. Children need to know their home background is secure, so they need their parents to stick together; society needs to know which people have joined together in a committed relationship and that they have done so for life; leaders and lawmakers need to know that citizens are committed to obey the law; and groups of people need to know that the individuals who make them up are sufficiently committed to defend them and put in the effort to make them work. Society, any society - whether formed on a religious basis or not - needs committed people to make it work. Relationships will only survive if people are committed to them. The move towards civil partnerships for those living together in a homosexual relationship is thus a wholly positive thing. It underlines for the whole of society the absolute necessity of commitment. If only heterosexual couples showed that amount of commitment! Some co-habiting heterosexual couples have suggested there should be a "civil partnership" for co-habiting couples. There is! It is more usually described as a Register Office wedding (though this kind of ceremony can also be performed in other venues), but it is in essence exactly what the civil partnership is. A secular declaration of commitment allied to an entry in a legal register which conveys legal rights and duties. Make no mistake about it, gay couples entering into a legal partnership are committing to each other for life. No less is required of them than of those undergoing civil marriage. The law needs to know that those it joins together and on whom it confers legal rights and favours are not just going to get unhitched on a whim when the going gets a little tough, or when partner "lets themselves go", or when someone more attractive comes over the horizon. Those who want the benefits of commitment must be prepared to live up to the responsibilities. "Having it all" is not an option - for anybody!

  All societies, everywhere in the world, need committed people, and need them now. Our world is dying for lack of committed people. Our parliament is short of politicians committed to the public good, even if it be to the expense of their own careers and personal glory. Our communities are the poorer because the people in them are unwilling to give personal service without pay, so vital projects cease when the funding runs out. Poor countries suffer because talented people in the richer parts of the world are unwilling to give of their expertise freely to help them in their suffering. Charities are hamstrung because they cannot pay people to do all the work that needs doing and people are reluctant to volunteer. And families and relationships are suffering because people are too much focussed on themselves and are insufficiently committed to their relationships. And relationships are the building blocks of the community; communities are the building blocks of nations; and nations built from such communities are the building blocks of a safer, more peaceful world.