Mark Scheme
Section A — Structured Questions (61 marks)
Question 1
(a) What is meant by the term 'cohabitation'? (2 marks)
Award 2 marks for a clear, accurate definition:
- Living together in a sexual relationship without being married (2)
Award 1 mark for a partial definition:
- Living together before marriage (1)
- Being in a relationship without being married (1)
Accept: unmarried couples sharing a home / partners living together
Reject: simply "being together" without reference to living arrangements
(b) Describe Christian teachings about the purpose of marriage. (5 marks)
Award up to 5 marks for developed points:
One mark for each of the following:
- Marriage is a sacred covenant / sacrament in the presence of God (1)
- The procreation of children / "be fruitful and multiply" (1)
- A lifelong, permanent commitment / "till death do us part" (1)
- Provides a stable environment for raising children (1)
- Mutual support and companionship between husband and wife (1)
- Expresses God's love for the Church / reflects Christ's relationship with the Church (1)
- The proper context for sexual relations / avoids fornication (1)
- Creates a new family unit / "two become one flesh" (1)
Accept: relevant biblical references such as Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, Ephesians 5
Award maximum 3 marks for a list. Award full marks for developed explanation of 3-4 purposes.
(c) Explain why some religious believers oppose same-sex marriage. (8 marks)
Levels of response:
Level 3 (5-8 marks): A detailed explanation showing understanding of why religious believers oppose same-sex marriage, with developed points and accurate use of religious terminology.
- 7-8 marks: Comprehensive explanation with multiple developed reasons and explicit religious references
- 5-6 marks: Clear explanation with some development and religious references
Level 2 (3-4 marks): A straightforward explanation with some understanding, which may be list-like or lack development.
- 3-4 marks: Several reasons given but limited development or religious reference
Level 1 (1-2 marks): A basic statement with minimal explanation.
- 1-2 marks: One or two simple points made
Indicative content:
- Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24)
- God created "male and female" for the purpose of procreation / same-sex couples cannot naturally have children
- Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27)
- Marriage is a sacrament ordained by God for heterosexual couples
- Traditional Christian teaching defines marriage as between man and woman for thousands of years
- Some believe it goes against Natural Law / the natural order created by God
- The purpose of marriage includes procreation which same-sex couples cannot fulfil
- May distinguish between loving same-sex couples but opposing marriage for theological reasons
Accept: references to specific denominations (e.g., Catholic Church, evangelical Protestant views)
Question 2
(a) According to the source, how did God create human beings? (2 marks)
Award 2 marks for:
- In his own image / in the image of God (1)
- As male and female (1)
Accept: created mankind / created them male and female / imago dei
(b) Explain Christian beliefs about the roles of men and women in the family. (5 marks)
Award up to 5 marks for developed points:
One mark for each of the following:
- Traditional view: men as head of the household / spiritual leader (1)
- Traditional view: women as nurturers / primary caregivers for children (1)
- Complementarian view: different but equal roles that complement each other (1)
- Egalitarian view: men and women have equal roles and shared responsibilities (1)
- Reference to Ephesians 5 – wives submit to husbands / husbands love wives (1)
- Both created in God's image therefore equal in value (1)
- Modern Christian views emphasise partnership and shared decision-making (1)
- Different denominations hold different views (e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant views on women's ordination) (1)
Accept: specific references to biblical passages, acknowledgment of diversity of Christian views
Award maximum 3 marks for a list.
(c) "Religious teachings about gender equality are no longer relevant in modern Britain." Evaluate this statement. (15 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding
Level 3 (5-6 marks): An excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding with thorough, accurate and relevant information about religious teachings on gender equality.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding with accurate and relevant information about religious teachings on gender equality.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): A limited demonstration of knowledge and understanding with some information about religious teachings on gender equality.
Indicative content (AO1):
- Biblical teaching: "There is neither... male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28)
- Creation accounts: both made in image of God (Genesis 1:27)
- Traditional complementarian teachings about different roles
- Jesus' treatment of women in the Gospels (Mary Magdalene, woman at the well, etc.)
- Modern Christian egalitarian movements
- Different denominational positions on women's leadership/ordination
- Teachings about marriage and family roles
AO2 – 9 marks: Analyse and evaluate
Level 4 (10-12 marks): An excellent, coherent evaluation with detailed analysis, fully justified conclusion and considering different perspectives.
Level 3 (7-9 marks): A good evaluation with clear analysis, justified conclusion and different perspectives considered.
Level 2 (4-6 marks): A limited evaluation with some analysis, which may be one-sided.
Level 1 (1-3 marks): A basic evaluation with minimal analysis.
Indicative content (AO2):
Arguments supporting the statement:
- Modern Britain has legal gender equality (Equality Act 2010)
- Women have equal opportunities in workplace, politics, education
- Traditional religious views can perpetuate discrimination and inequality
- Religious texts written in patriarchal societies, reflect those cultural norms not eternal truth
- Secular ethics provide adequate framework for gender equality
- Some religious teachings used to justify subordination of women
Arguments supporting a different view:
- Religious teachings provide moral foundation for respecting all people
- Many religious teachings actually promote equality (Galatians 3:28)
- Religious communities have adapted teachings for modern context while maintaining core values
- Faith provides motivation for fighting inequality and injustice
- Religious teachings offer more than just rules – provide meaning and purpose to relationships
- Complementarian doesn't mean unequal – different roles can have equal value
- Religious perspective adds dimension secular approach lacks
Conclusion should be clearly stated and justified based on arguments presented.
Question 3
(a) What is meant by 'quality of life'? (2 marks)
Award 2 marks for a clear definition:
- The extent to which life is meaningful and comfortable / worth living (2)
Award 1 mark for partial definition:
- How good someone's life is (1)
- Whether life is enjoyable (1)
Accept: measure of fulfillment / wellbeing / ability to do things that make life worthwhile / freedom from suffering
(b) Describe Christian beliefs about what happens after death. (5 marks)
Award up to 5 marks for developed points:
One mark for each of the following:
- Belief in resurrection of the body / life after death (1)
- Heaven as eternal life with God for believers / the saved (1)
- Hell as eternal separation from God for unbelievers / punishment for sin (1)
- Purgatory (Catholic belief) as place of purification before heaven (1)
- Judgment by God / Day of Judgment (1)
- Soul continues after bodily death (1)
- Jesus' resurrection as promise/proof of resurrection for believers (1)
- Return of Christ / Second Coming at end times (1)
Accept: specific biblical references (1 Corinthians 15, John 14:2-3, Revelation 21)
Award maximum 3 marks for list.
(c) Explain why many religious believers are opposed to euthanasia. (8 marks)
Levels of response:
Level 3 (5-8 marks): A detailed explanation showing understanding of religious opposition to euthanasia, with developed points.
- 7-8 marks: Comprehensive explanation with multiple developed reasons
- 5-6 marks: Clear explanation with some development
Level 2 (3-4 marks): A straightforward explanation with some understanding, which may be list-like.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): A basic statement with minimal explanation.
Indicative content:
- Sanctity of life – life is sacred because it is given by God
- Only God has authority to take life / "playing God"
- Sixth Commandment: "You shall not murder"
- Life is a gift from God and should be preserved
- Suffering may have spiritual purpose / redemptive value
- Hospice care and palliative care provide alternatives
- Concerns about vulnerable people being pressured
- Slippery slope argument – where would it end?
- All human life has value regardless of quality of life
- Reference to specific teachings (e.g., Catholic Church's opposition, Evangelium Vitae)
Accept: distinction between active and passive euthanasia if explained
Question 4
(a) According to the source, when does God know a person? (2 marks)
Award 2 marks for:
- Before they were formed in the womb / before conception (1)
- Before they were born (1)
Accept: from the beginning / before existence / always
Award 1 mark for partial answer:
(b) Explain Christian beliefs about the sanctity of life. (5 marks)
Award up to 5 marks for developed points:
One mark for each of the following:
- All human life is sacred/holy because it is created by God (1)
- Humans are made in the image of God (imago dei) (1)
- Life is a gift from God that should be respected and protected (1)
- Only God has the right to give and take life (1)
- Every person has inherent dignity and worth regardless of circumstances (1)
- Jesus' incarnation shows God values human life (1)
- Biblical commandment "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13) (1)
- Applies from conception to natural death (1)
Accept: specific references to biblical passages
Award maximum 3 marks for list.
(c) "Abortion should always be a woman's personal choice." Evaluate this statement. (15 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding
Level 3 (5-6 marks): An excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding with thorough, accurate information about religious and ethical perspectives on abortion.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding with accurate information.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): A limited demonstration of knowledge and understanding.
Indicative content (AO1):
- Christian teaching on sanctity of life
- "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5)
- Made in image of God (Genesis 1:27)
- Catholic absolute opposition to abortion (Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae)
- Some Protestant views allow abortion in limited circumstances
- Different views on when life begins / ensoulment
- Principle of double effect in medical ethics
- Pro-choice arguments about women's autonomy and bodily rights
- Circumstances: rape, threat to mother's life, fetal abnormality
AO2 – 9 marks: Analyse and evaluate
Level 4 (10-12 marks): An excellent, coherent evaluation with detailed analysis and fully justified conclusion.
Level 3 (7-9 marks): A good evaluation with clear analysis and justified conclusion.
Level 2 (4-6 marks): A limited evaluation with some analysis.
Level 1 (1-3 marks): A basic evaluation with minimal analysis.
Indicative content (AO2):
Arguments supporting the statement:
- Woman's right to bodily autonomy / "my body, my choice"
- Woman carries physical and emotional burden of pregnancy
- Woman's life circumstances matter (poverty, education, career)
- State/religion should not control women's reproductive choices
- Unwanted children may suffer / quality of life concerns
- Cases of rape or incest
- Threat to woman's mental or physical health
- Legal abortion is safer than illegal back-street abortion
- Fetus is not yet a person with rights
Arguments supporting a different view:
- Fetus is a human life with right to life from conception
- Abortion violates sanctity of life principle
- Life begins at conception – ending it is killing an innocent human being
- Rights of unborn child should be considered
- Alternatives available: adoption, support services
- Religious authority: Bible and Church teaching oppose abortion
- Slippery slope to devaluing human life
- Can cause psychological harm to women
- Society should protect most vulnerable, including unborn
Conclusion should be clearly stated and justified.
Section B — Extended Response (41 marks)
Question 5
"Religious believers should accept scientific theories such as evolution because there is evidence to support them." (15 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding
Level 3 (5-6 marks): An excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding with thorough, accurate and relevant information about the relationship between science and religion, evolution, and Christian teaching.
- 6 marks: Comprehensive coverage with excellent use of religious terminology and concepts
- 5 marks: Thorough coverage with good use of religious terminology
Level 2 (3-4 marks): A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding with accurate and relevant information.
- 4 marks: Several accurate points with some religious terminology
- 3 marks: Some accurate points with basic religious terminology
Level 1 (1-2 marks): A limited demonstration of knowledge and understanding with some basic information.
- 2 marks: Two or three basic points
- 1 mark: One basic point
Indicative content (AO1):
- Scientific evidence for evolution: fossil record, DNA, natural selection
- Genesis creation accounts (Genesis 1-2)
- Different Christian interpretations: creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution
- Literalist vs. symbolic interpretation of biblical texts
- God as Creator doesn't contradict evolutionary processes
- Reference to specific Christians who accept evolution (e.g., Pope Francis, Anglican Church position)
- Conflict model vs. compatibility model of science-religion relationship
- NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) – Stephen Jay Gould
- Historical examples: Galileo, Darwin
- Science explains "how," religion explains "why"
AO2 – 9 marks: Analyse and evaluate
Level 4 (10-12 marks): An excellent, coherent evaluation with detailed analysis, fully justified conclusion with thorough consideration of different perspectives.
- 10-12 marks: Sophisticated analysis with nuanced understanding of different perspectives
Level 3 (7-9 marks): A good evaluation with clear analysis and justified conclusion considering different perspectives.
- 9 marks: Clear, well-developed analysis from multiple perspectives
- 7-8 marks: Good analysis with some development from different perspectives
Level 2 (4-6 marks): A limited evaluation with some analysis, which may be one-sided or lack development.
- 5-6 marks: Some analysis but may be unbalanced or lack depth
- 4 marks: Limited analysis, largely descriptive
Level 1 (1-3 marks): A basic evaluation with minimal analysis.
- 2-3 marks: Very basic points with minimal reasoning
- 1 mark: Single assertion
Indicative content (AO2):
Arguments supporting the statement:
- Scientific method provides testable, verifiable evidence
- Evolution is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus
- Faith and reason should work together – truth cannot contradict truth
- God could work through evolutionary processes
- Rejecting science makes religion appear irrational and outdated
- Many religious scientists accept evolution (e.g., Francis Collins)
- Genesis can be interpreted symbolically/metaphorically
- Theistic evolution reconciles faith and science
- Refusing scientific evidence damages credibility of religious believers
Arguments supporting a different view:
- Bible is revealed word of God and takes priority over human theories
- Evolution conflicts with literal reading of Genesis
- Science cannot explain ultimate questions of meaning and purpose
- Science has limits – cannot prove or disprove God's existence
- Evolution is "just a theory" with gaps in evidence
- Accepting evolution may undermine other religious beliefs
- Religion addresses different questions than science
- Can maintain faith without accepting every scientific theory
- God's revelation in scripture is more reliable than human interpretation of evidence
Candidates should reach a justified conclusion based on arguments presented.
Question 6
"The death penalty is never justified, no matter what crime has been committed." (15 marks)
AO1 – 6 marks: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding
Level 3 (5-6 marks): An excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding with thorough, accurate information about religious and non-religious perspectives on capital punishment.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding with accurate information.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): A limited demonstration with some basic information.
Indicative content (AO1):
- Christian teaching on sanctity of life
- "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13)
- Old Testament support: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Exodus 21:23-25)
- Jesus' teaching on forgiveness and mercy
- "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7)
- Catholic Church opposition to death penalty (Catechism revision 2018)
- Some Protestant support for death penalty as just punishment
- New Testament: "governing authorities" have right to punish (Romans 13:4)
- Purpose of punishment: retribution, deterrence, protection, reformation
- Human rights perspective: right to life
- Utilitarian arguments about greatest good
- Risk of executing innocent people
- Examples of countries that retain/abolished death penalty
AO2 – 9 marks: Analyse and evaluate
Level 4 (10-12 marks): An excellent, coherent evaluation with detailed analysis and fully justified conclusion.
Level 3 (7-9 marks): A good evaluation with clear analysis and justified conclusion.
Level 2 (4-6 marks): A limited evaluation with some analysis.
Level 1 (1-3 marks): A basic evaluation with minimal analysis.
Indicative content (AO2):
Arguments supporting the statement:
- Sanctity of life applies to all, including criminals
- Risk of executing innocent people (miscarriages of justice)
- Death penalty is irreversible if mistakes are made
- Jesus taught forgiveness not revenge
- State should not have power over life and death
- Death penalty applied inconsistently / discriminates against poor and minorities
- Does not deter crime more effectively than life imprisonment
- Possibility of rehabilitation and redemption for all
- Violates human dignity and human rights
- Brutalizes society and continues cycle of violence
- Modern alternatives available (life imprisonment)
Arguments supporting a different view:
- Most serious crimes deserve ultimate punishment (retribution/justice)
- Biblical precedent for capital punishment (Genesis 9:6)
- Protects society from most dangerous criminals
- Brings closure to victims' families
- May deter others from committing serious crimes
- Some crimes are so heinous they forfeit right to life
- Justice requires proportionate punishment
- Romans 13 gives government authority to use capital punishment
- Costs less than keeping prisoner for life
- Democratic societies have right to decide own laws
Conclusion should be clearly stated and justified.
Question 7
"Religious people have a duty to help the poor and suffering in the world, but this should be through charity, not political action." (11 marks)
AO1 – 4 marks: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding
Level 3 (4 marks): An excellent demonstration of knowledge and understanding with accurate, relevant information about religious teaching on wealth, poverty and ways of responding.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding with some accurate information.
- 3 marks: Several accurate points
- 2 marks: Some basic accurate information
Level 1 (1 mark): A limited demonstration with minimal information.
Indicative content (AO1):
- Christian teaching: "Love your neighbour" / Good Samaritan parable
- Jesus' concern for the poor: "Blessed are the poor" (Beatitudes)
- "Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40)
- Preferential option for the poor (Liberation Theology)
- Biblical teaching on charity: tithing, almsgiving
- Parable of sheep and goats (Matthew 25)
- Examples of Christian charities: Christian Aid, CAFOD, Tearfund
- Prophetic tradition of challenging injustice (Amos, Isaiah)
- Jubilee principle of debt cancellation
- Stewardship of resources
AO2 – 7 marks: Analyse and evaluate
Level 4 (7 marks): An excellent, coherent evaluation with detailed analysis and fully justified conclusion.
Level 3 (5-6 marks): A good evaluation with clear analysis and justified conclusion.
- 6 marks: Good analysis considering different perspectives
- 5 marks: Clear analysis with some consideration of perspectives
Level 2 (3-4 marks): A limited evaluation with some analysis.
- 4 marks: Some analysis, may be one-sided
- 3 marks: Limited analysis
Level 1 (1-2 marks): A basic evaluation with minimal analysis.
- 2 marks: Two basic points
- 1 mark: Single basic point
Indicative content (AO2):
Arguments supporting the statement:
- Direct charity immediately helps those in need
- Jesus focused on individual acts of compassion and mercy
- Charity allows personal connection and relationship with those helped
- Political involvement can compromise religious principles
- Church should focus on spiritual mission not political activism
- Individuals can make immediate difference through charity
- Charity reflects personal faith commitment
- Political systems are corrupt/flawed
- Giving to charity is commanded in Bible
Arguments supporting a different view:
- Charity treats symptoms, political action addresses root causes of poverty
- Biblical prophets challenged unjust political and economic systems
- Systemic injustice requires systemic solutions
- Liberation Theology: God has preferential option for poor, requires challenging oppression
- Jesus overturned tables in temple (political act against corrupt system)
- Both charity and justice are needed
- Political action can help many more people than individual charity
- Christians have duty to work for justice not just give to charity
- Examples: Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, Oscar Romero
- "Faith without works is dead" includes working for just society
Conclusion should be clearly stated and justified.
Sample Answers with Examiner Commentary
Question 2(c) — Sample Answers
"Religious teachings about gender equality are no longer relevant in modern Britain."
Grade 9 (top of Higher) answer
Religious teachings about gender equality remain highly relevant in modern Britain, although the way they are understood and applied has evolved considerably.
On one hand, it could be argued that religious teachings are outdated. Traditional Christian teachings have historically been used to justify women's subordination, such as the idea that men should be "head of the household" based on Ephesians 5:23. In modern Britain, where the Equality Act 2010 ensures legal protection against discrimination, where women have equal access to education, careers and political office, these traditional religious views can seem not only irrelevant but actually harmful. Some religious communities still refuse to ordain women or give them leadership roles, which contradicts contemporary values of equality. Furthermore, religious texts were written in patriarchal societies thousands of years ago and arguably reflect the cultural norms of those times rather than eternal truths applicable today. Secular ethics and human rights frameworks provide a perfectly adequate basis for promoting gender equality without needing to rely on ancient religious texts.
However, religious teachings can still be highly relevant when properly understood. Christianity at its core teaches that all people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and Paul wrote that "there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), which provides a powerful theological foundation for equality. Many modern Christians interpret complementarian teachings not as hierarchy but as different roles with equal value and dignity. Moreover, religious teachings offer something secular approaches cannot: a transcendent basis for human dignity that cannot be taken away by governments or changed by popular opinion. Religious communities have actually been at the forefront of many social justice movements, including fighting for women's rights. Jesus himself treated women with remarkable respect in a patriarchal society, including Mary Magdalene and the Samaritan woman, providing a model that challenged cultural norms. Different Christian denominations are successfully reinterpreting traditional teachings for modern contexts while maintaining core values – many Protestant churches now ordain women, showing that faith can adapt.
It is also important to recognize that "relevance" doesn't mean blind agreement with contemporary culture. Religious teachings can offer prophetic challenge to society, and sometimes maintaining a different perspective is valuable. The question is not whether religious teachings agree with modern Britain, but whether they offer wisdom and insight.
In conclusion, while some traditional interpretations of religious teachings about gender are problematic and outdated, the core religious principle that all humans are made in God's image remains profoundly relevant as a foundation for equality. Religious teachings are most relevant when they are thoughtfully interpreted and applied to contemporary contexts rather than being either rigidly traditional or completely abandoned. Religious believers can uphold genuine equality while maintaining faith commitments.
Mark: 15/15
Examiner commentary: This is an excellent response that demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of relevant Christian teachings (AO1) including specific biblical references and contemporary Church positions, alongside sophisticated analysis (AO2) that considers multiple perspectives fairly. The answer explores complementarian vs. egalitarian interpretations, addresses both weaknesses and strengths of religious approaches, and reaches a nuanced, well-justified conclusion that religious teachings can remain relevant when properly understood. The response shows excellent structure and uses precise theological terminology throughout.
Grade 6 (solid pass) answer
Some people would agree that religious teachings about gender equality are no longer relevant because modern Britain is very different from biblical times. In the Bible, women often had to obey men and couldn't have important positions. For example, Ephesians says wives should submit to their husbands. This seems very old-fashioned today when men and women are equal and women can have any job they want, including Prime Minister. The laws in Britain say everyone must be treated equally regardless of gender, so we don't need religious teachings to tell us this anymore.
Also, some religious groups still don't let women be priests or leaders, which shows that these teachings can actually hold back equality. If religions keep teaching traditional ideas about men and women having different roles, this goes against modern values and isn't helpful.
On the other hand, religious teachings about gender equality can still be relevant. Christians believe that God created both men and women in his image, which means both genders are equally valuable. In the Bible it says "there is neither male nor female" in Christ Jesus, which shows Christianity teaches equality. Jesus treated women with respect, like when he spoke to the Samaritan woman, which was unusual in those times.
Religious teachings give people a reason to treat everyone with respect and dignity beyond just what the law says. They can inspire people to fight for equality and justice. Many religious people have worked to improve women's rights and continue to do so today.
In conclusion, I think religious teachings are still relevant but need to be understood in a modern way. The core message about everyone being equal in God's eyes is still important, even if some of the specific rules from ancient times need to be updated for today's society.
Mark: 9/15 (AO1: 4/6, AO2: 5/9)
Examiner commentary: This response demonstrates good knowledge of relevant Christian teachings with some biblical references and shows reasonable understanding of the issue. However, the AO1 content lacks the depth and breadth of the top band – it could include more specific teachings, denominations' positions, or theological concepts. The analysis (AO2) presents both sides but the arguments are not fully developed and the conclusion, while present, could be more sophisticated. The answer would benefit from more detailed exploration of how religious teachings might be "understood in a modern way" and deeper engagement with counter-arguments.
Grade 3 (near miss) answer
I think religious teachings about gender equality are not relevant anymore because Britain has moved on from old ideas. In the olden days the Bible said women should stay at home and look after children while men went to work, but now women can do the same jobs as men.
Religious teachings are from thousands of years ago and things have changed a lot since then. Women couldn't vote or have good jobs back then but now they can, so we don't need religion to tell us what to do about equality anymore. Some religions still treat women as less important than men which is wrong.
However, some people might think religious teachings are still relevant because they believe the Bible is true. Christians believe God created everyone equal. Also religious people do charity work to help others which shows they care about treating people fairly.
In conclusion, I think religious teachings are mostly not relevant because modern Britain has better ideas about equality than old religious books do.
Mark: 4/15 (AO1: 2/6, AO2: 2/9)
Examiner commentary: This response shows limited knowledge and understanding of Christian teachings on gender equality. The AO1 content contains significant misconceptions (the Bible does not simply say "women should stay at home" – this oversimplifies complex teachings) and lacks specific scriptural references or theological concepts. The AO2 analysis is superficial, presenting only basic points without development, and the arguments are one-sided and asserted rather than reasoned. To improve, the candidate needs to: demonstrate more accurate knowledge of actual Christian teachings (e.g., Genesis 1:27, Galatians 3:28, different denominational positions), develop arguments more fully with reasoning and evidence, consider different perspectives more fairly, and reach a more justified conclusion.
Question 6 — Sample Answers
"The death penalty is never justified, no matter what crime has been committed."
Grade 9 (top of Higher) answer
The question of whether capital punishment can ever be justified is one of the most profound ethical debates, involving fundamental questions about the value of human life, justice, mercy and the role of the state. While there are strong religious arguments on both sides, I believe the weight of Christian teaching ultimately supports the view that the death penalty is never justified.
Those who argue the death penalty can be justified often appeal to biblical precedent. The Old Testament law includes capital punishment for various offences, and Genesis 9:6 states "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed." This seems to establish a principle of proportionate justice. Some Christians interpret Romans 13:4, which describes governing authorities as "God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer," as giving the state authority to use capital punishment. From this perspective, the most serious crimes such as murder violate the sanctity of life so profoundly that they deserve the ultimate penalty. This view emphasizes retributive justice – that punishment should be proportionate to the crime and that society has both the right and duty to exact appropriate punishment. Additionally, pragmatic arguments suggest that execution protects society from dangerous criminals and may deter others from committing serious crimes, though evidence for deterrence is contested.
However, there are compelling Christian reasons to oppose capital punishment in all circumstances. The central Christian principle of sanctity of life teaches that all human life is sacred because every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This applies even to criminals – their human dignity cannot be completely forfeited regardless of their actions. Crucially, Jesus' teaching represents a development from Old Testament law, emphasizing mercy over retribution. When faced with a woman condemned to death for adultery, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7), preventing her execution and teaching that none of us has the moral authority to take another's life. Jesus taught his followers to forgive "seventy times seven" times and showed mercy even to those crucifying him: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The Christian message is fundamentally one of redemption and transformation – that no one is beyond God's grace and love. Capital punishment eliminates any possibility of repentance, rehabilitation or reconciliation.
Furthermore, there are serious practical and moral problems with the death penalty. It is irreversible, and numerous cases have proven that innocent people have been executed due to flawed evidence, false testimony or inadequate legal representation. In a fallen world with imperfect justice systems, this risk alone should give us profound pause. The death penalty has also been shown to be applied inconsistently, with bias against the poor and racial minorities. From a human rights perspective, the right to life is considered the most fundamental right, which even serious crimes should not override. Moreover, the evidence suggests that capital punishment does not deter crime more effectively than life imprisonment, undermining one of its key justifications.
The Catholic Church has developed its position to reflect these concerns. While historically accepting capital punishment in extreme cases, Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995) argued it should only be used when absolutely necessary to protect society, adding that such cases are "very rare, if not practically non-existent" given modern secure prisons. In 2018, the Catechism was revised to state that the death penalty is "inadmissible" because it "attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person." This represents an development of doctrine in light of both theological reflection and contemporary circumstances.
In conclusion, while I recognize that some sincere Christians support capital punishment based on biblical texts and justice principles, I believe that when we consider Jesus' teaching on mercy and forgiveness alongside the practical problems of irreversibility and discrimination, the death penalty is never justified. Christian faith calls us to recognize the possibility of redemption in every person and to build a justice system that protects society while respecting human dignity. Life imprisonment serves the purposes of punishment and protection without violating the sanctity of life or eliminating the possibility of transformation.
Mark: 15/15
Examiner commentary: This is an exemplary response demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of Christian teaching on capital punishment (AO1), including specific biblical references, theological principles (sanctity of life, redemption), and contemporary Church teaching. The analysis (AO2) is sophisticated and nuanced, presenting substantive arguments from different perspectives with detailed reasoning. The candidate engages critically with both retributive justice arguments and mercy/forgiveness teachings, considers practical as well as theological dimensions, and reaches a well-justified personal conclusion. The structure is clear and the use of religious and ethical terminology is precise throughout. This represents the highest level of achievement.
Grade 6 (solid pass) answer
There are different views on whether the death penalty is ever justified. Some people believe it should never be used while others think it is appropriate for the worst crimes like murder and terrorism.
Christians who think the death penalty is never justified believe in the sanctity of life, which means all life is sacred because God created it. The commandment says "You shall not murder" and this applies to the state executing people as well as to criminals. Jesus taught forgiveness and mercy, not revenge. When people wanted to stone a woman to death, Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and stopped them. This shows Jesus was against capital punishment. Christianity teaches that people should have a chance to repent and be forgiven, but if you execute someone they can never repent. There is also the risk of executing innocent people by mistake, which has happened in some cases. Once someone is executed you cannot bring them back if you find out they were innocent.
However, some Christians support the death penalty for serious crimes. In the Old Testament it says "an eye for an eye" which means punishment should match the crime. If someone murders another person, then their own life is a fair punishment. The Bible says in Genesis that "whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed." Romans 13 says that the government has authority to punish wrongdoers. Some people believe that the death penalty protects society from dangerous criminals and might stop other people from committing murder because they fear the consequences. For victims' families, execution might bring justice and closure.
The case study shows that 55 countries still have the death penalty but Britain abolished it in 1965. This shows there are different views around the world. In modern Britain we believe in human rights and rehabilitation, so most people think life imprisonment is better than execution.
In conclusion, I think the death penalty is not justified because Christian teaching emphasizes forgiveness and giving people a chance to change. The risk of executing innocent people is too great and life imprisonment can protect society without killing people.
Mark: 9/15 (AO1: 4/6, AO2: 5/9)
Examiner commentary: This response demonstrates good knowledge of relevant Christian teachings with appropriate biblical references and shows understanding of different perspectives. The AO1 content includes sanctity of life, specific teachings of Jesus, and Old Testament principles. However, it lacks the depth and sophistication of higher band responses – for example, it could include discussion of Church positions, theological development of teaching, or more nuanced understanding of justice principles. The AO2 analysis presents both sides but the arguments could be more fully developed and critically engaged. The conclusion is present and justified but relatively straightforward. To reach the higher bands, more detailed analysis and more sophisticated evaluation of the competing arguments would be needed.
Grade 3 (near miss) answer
I think the death penalty is not justified because killing people is wrong. The Bible says "You shall not kill" in the Ten Commandments so Christians should not support the death penalty. Two wrongs don't make a right, so even if someone commits murder it is wrong to murder them back.
Jesus taught people to forgive others and be kind. He would not want people to be executed. All life is sacred to Christians so they should protect life not take it away. Everyone deserves a second chance to change their ways and become a better person.
Some people think the death penalty is good because it punishes criminals properly and stops them committing more crimes. If someone kills another person they deserve to die too because it's fair. It might also scare other people so they won't commit murder.
But I think this is wrong because sometimes innocent people get executed by mistake and that is very unfair. Also, countries like Britain don't have the death penalty anymore and we still have low crime, so it shows you don't need it.
In conclusion, the death penalty is never justified because killing is always wrong and Christians should forgive people not kill them.
Mark: 4/15 (AO1: 2/6, AO2: 2/9)
Examiner commentary: This response demonstrates limited knowledge and understanding of Christian teaching on capital punishment. While the candidate mentions the commandment and forgiveness, there is minimal development and no specific biblical references beyond "You shall not kill." The AO1 content is basic and contains an inaccuracy (the commandment is usually translated "You shall not murder" not "kill," and this distinction matters in discussions of capital punishment). The AO2 analysis is superficial, with assertions rather than developed reasoning. The arguments are simplistic ("two wrongs don't make a right") and do not engage with the complexity of justice, proportionate punishment, or different Christian perspectives. To improve, the candidate needs to: demonstrate more detailed knowledge of biblical teaching and Church positions, develop arguments with reasoning and evidence rather than assertion, consider different Christian perspectives more substantively (e.g., those who support capital punishment based on Romans 13 or Genesis 9:6), and engage with the ethical complexity of the issue rather than treating it as straightforward.