What I wrote to Maria Miller MP during the 'equal marriage' consultation

I thought it might be helpful to share with you the email that I wrote to my Member of Parliament during the UK government's 'consultation' about their 'equal marriage' proposals. For those who don't know, Maria Miller, is coincidentally not only the MP representing the constituency in which I live, but she is also Culture Secretary in David Cameron's government. It is her department that is responsible for the consultation and the resulting legislation.

On re-reading I recognise I may have been a tad aggressive. I tend to be overly blunt when up against opposition and feeling the need to be both clear and forceful. Not everyone, even those who agree with my reasoning, will agree with my conclusions. Let me know - particularly fellow believers - what you think. Should this change the way we vote? I am open to correction and guidance from those wiser than myself, especially on such an important issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mrs Miller,

I write as a registered voter in the Basingstoke constituency which you represent. I have lived here 20 years, and live in Rooksdown with my wife and four children.

I have normally voted Conservative since I turned 18. Fundamentally, however, I am a Christian, and my political views are shaped by and subject to God's revelation in the Bible, including the foundations of justice and morality. The Conservative party always seemed to me to align best with Christian foundations.

Unfortunately, having been uneasy for years over the state of British politics from a Christian point of view, I now find myself at a turning point. The government seems hellbent on redefining marriage to include same sex marriage. The consultation is a sham, with the conclusion having been decided in advance. I hope that you have seen the open letter addressed to you by the Christian blogger 'Archbishop Cranmer'. If not, the link is below. It sums up much of what I think about the issue, and aligns with the views of many Christians in Basingstoke, certainly at least at the church I belong to (St Mary's, Eastrop). I have signed the Coalition for Marriage petition, along with hundreds of thousands of others, and sent my views into the consultation.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-maria-miller-mp.html

For David Cameron, yourself and others this seems more than just the normal boring political wrangling over who is best at running health and education. This is about fundamental philosophical beliefs. I heard that David Cameron once said that the church would have to change like the Conservative party, and realise that equality is the absolute bottom line. This is the thing that really perturbs me. Politicians seem to see the church and religious groups as exactly the same as political parties, and seem to think that everyone buys into the same pluralistic philosophical presuppositions. We don't! For Christians the bottom line is not equality. The bottom line is the worship of the real God. And that is something unchangeable, non-negotiable and utterly fundamental. All Christian views on equality and justice and morality stem from the view that God sets the rules, not us, and true freedom comes from following those rules.

Christianity, it has to be said, is a religion of grace and good news. That's because none of us is capable of keeping God's rules, and the world is in the bad state it's in because of the sin of rejecting God's commands. Jesus Christ came to offer eternal life to those who will repent of that sin and trust in His death and resurrection. And Christian love, forgiveness and 'acts of mercy' are fundamentally based on the belief that no human being is beyond forgiveness, no matter what their sin, because God accepts all who come to Him through faith in Jesus Christ.

However, in democratic political terms, I don't believe that any Christian could in good conscience use their electoral vote for someone who directly defies God. And that is what you, Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg and others are doing. You believe that you know better than the real God, the one who created everything - including you - and made things to function in particular ways. In fact, you probably don't even believe there is a god. And therefore all you are left with is your own intellectual authority. Who says equality is the philosophical bottom line? You do!

Anyway, I could go on. I have never written to an MP before. But at this point in my life I have finally reached the point where I can no longer justify voting Conservative. After his stand against Christian morality, and after making it clear that he will push ahead with these changes no matter who objects, I do not want Mr Cameron to remain Prime Minister, and I do not want any equal marriage supporter to be in parliament. Therefore, you have lost my vote.

Of course, that wouldn't bother you… because who else can I vote for? Not any of the main parties, who are all infected by the same anti-Christian philosophical bias. Hence I will vote for any sensible looking independent candidate. This, I know, is unlikely to have any tangible effect on the political landscape, even if lots of Christians decided to do the same. But I have to go with my conscience.

The thing, however, that I hoped may bother the political powers, like yourself and the Prime Minister, is that being a matter of conscience and deeply held belief means that Christians will refuse to obey any new laws based on the redefinition of marriage. What our God tells us is more important than what you and Mr Cameron tell us, and God's laws are more important that the laws of the UK. It is true that one of our most peaceable principles as Christians is that we must obey the law of the land, because God has set the government in place for our good. However, when the law of the land tells us we must disobey God, then we can't do that.

Why is this such a watershed? For Christians this is a step too far. We have tolerated homosexuality as practiced by individuals. We believe it is sinful, and we call for repentance, but we tolerate the presence of such sin, because we live in a sinful world. We have tolerated civil partnership arrangements, which endorse immorality, because we do not have to recognise them as anything more than two individuals committing to an immoral relationship. They should still repent, but we tolerate the presence of civil partnerships because we live in a sinful world. However, when the legal definition of marriage is changed that will mean that churches (which are legally obliged to offer marriage to everyone in England) will be legally bound to offer marriage to homosexual couples. Christian ministers will not do this (unless they are very liberal). It means that schools will have to teach that marriage is not about one man and one woman, but about two people. Christian teachers, and church schools, will not teach this. And there are a whole host of other implications which have been pointed out by the Coalition for Marriage.

The sad thing is that you will be forcing the most benign, law-abiding, minority group in the country into law-breaking, and forcing Christians to be outsiders and outcasts in a society that was founded on Christian belief, morality and justice.

After this, my view of British politics is changed for ever.

Regards,


Andrew Burrows

How I came to faith

-->

I thought this time I might share with you the story of how I came to faith in Jesus. It’s a bit self indulgent, but then again that’s what this blog is all about – my reflections on experiences and stuff! And anyway, I do sometimes get asked.

I don’t call it ‘how I became a Christian’, because I think I would have always called myself a Christian. My mum and dad are Christians, so I would never have considered myself anything else. So in that sense I wasn’t ‘converted’. I didn’t ‘convert’ from atheism or Hinduism or Judaism to Christianity.

However, as kids do, when I was small I used to believe everything Mum and Dad told me, just because they said so. And there’s nothing wrong with that. What else can you do as a child? You learn everything from your Mum and Dad, so if they say that Jesus saves us from our sins then why would you question that?

But there does come a time when you do start to ask whether what your mum and dad believe is true. You start to need persuading, even about what clothes to wear, how to behave at school and what time to go to bed. So you start to ask whether God is real, and whether Jesus really is the Saviour of the world.

So I was sat in church one Sunday morning, listening to the vicar give his talk about the Bible. I was about twelve years old. I don’t even remember what he was talking about. But I remember suddenly realizing that what he was talking about was real. It wasn’t a made up story or a myth. It was stuff that actually happened. God was real. Jesus was real. And if they were real then Heaven and Hell were real. What I’d been taught about the world, God, Jesus, sin, being saved all made sense to me in my head. But suddenly I knew that if all this was real and true, then I could not go on in life without it affecting the way I lived my life.

I suppose I realized that Jesus was calling me not just to believe in him, but to follow him. This wasn’t just something that I could keep for Sundays only. I had a real Heavenly Father, and a real Saviour, who had saved me from a real Hell, and given me the hope of a real eternal life in a real Heaven - just as real as everything I could see, hear, smell and touch. And that meant it affected every day and everything, not just Sundays at church.

So I prayed that God would help me to live as a Christian every day and learn to follow him.

I don’t think at that age I really realized everything that meant, and I still have lots to learn even thirty years later, but for me that was the start of the journey.

Was I a changed person after that point? Well, yes, but not in a dramatic way that anyone would have really noticed. And I don’t remember being really committed to prayer and reading my Bible until I was seventeen. In between I was a normal teenager with normal interests – I played cricket, and I learned the guitar and started a rock band and started writing songs. But what I do remember is that when I did read the Bible or hear a talk at church, I heard it like it was something that would apply to me. And when I prayed at church or with Mum and Dad I knew that I was really speaking to my heavenly Father, and so I used to pray more and more on my own. It was a bit like waking up from a dreamy sleep.

Of course, life is the only test of whether faith is real. We live out what we really believe. Self-deception is possible and indeed common. So I am constantly aware of the need to fight off the influences of an apathetic world that is constantly trying to kill my faith with a thousand hours of TV-banality, atheistic smugness and shoulder-shrugging peer pressure. We have to persevere to the end to be saved, and only perseverance to the end will prove our faith to be real.

Of course, the hardships and the bad things that happen in our lives should be seen as trials to prove our faith genuine. “…now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” (1 Peter 1:6-7)

And I can certainly identify a few times of hardship in my own life – 4 redundancies and 4 significant periods of unemployment, 2 bouts of cancer. This blog is testimony to the way I have searched for that “proven genuineness” of faith. I have sought to apply what I have learned from the Bible, and believe in my head and in my heart, to the situations I find myself in. I have wrestled and learned even more in the process. And I hope that this will result in “praise, glory and honour” for Christ.

One of the biggest things I’ve learned is that the purpose of life – yes, I believe that life does have a purpose – is God-centred and not me-centred or even man-centred.

But even when life is easier, our faith is being tried and tested. In the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20) Jesus talks about four types of soil representing four types of people who hear the Word of God. Only one rejects the Word outright. Two produce seedlings that did not last and become fruitful – one because of hardship, the other because “the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things” choked the life out of them (v19). So even the successes, the good things, family, friends, possessions, wealth, happiness, fun, enjoyment – all these things can try our faith.

They are things that can suck the life out of our faith simply by getting in front of God. We become too busy to pray, to go to church, to read the Bible. Before we know it we are doing things and saying things we wouldn’t have dreamed of doing before. Then we feel guilty. Then we forget that God’s grace is to sinners, and we perversely tell ourselves that God won’t have us back… and then we don’t look back. It happens time and time again.

If you are one of those people that has reached the end of that progression, please remember that God welcomes us like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son. None of us deserve His love and forgiveness, but He is merciful to all who come to Him through the Lord Jesus in faith and repentance.

For my own part, I have also had more than my fair share of smooth times too, and have experienced complacency and regretted it. Paul said, “Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” (1 Corinthians 10:12) I knew that verse like the back of my hand and still didn’t see the fall coming. Perhaps this is why Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians (5:15-16), “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.”

Anyway, so that’s my story. I hope that you have found it helpful. It’s not earthshattering or miraculous, quite undramatic. But it’s me, and it’s real. So I’d encourage you to ponder the real God, who in different ways is doing real things in the lives of real people day after day. And if you are a Christian, please keep striving for that “proven genuineness” of your faith in good times and in bad – because both will come. If you’re not a Christian, wake up and stop living in a dream world where meaning is elusory, purpose is meaningless and actions have no real consequences. Repent and start living in the real world, with the real God, with real purpose and meaning, and where there really is an eternal life through Jesus Chris after this one.

Am I a Bigot?

It wasn’t until the day the 2012 US Presidential Election results were announced that I finally took a little bit of interest in it. I don’t normally have much time for news, from the newspapers or from the radio or TV. I have become somewhat cynical about media reporting, not only because of the way certain stories are reported, but because I’m suspicious of the editorial decision-making over what constitutes a newsworthy story in the first place. Be that as it may, I’ve observed over many years that the British media coverage of US politics is pretty anti-conservative. They largely poked fun at Reagan, ridiculed both Bush’s, especially the last one; and Dan Quayle was especially targeted. We seem to wring our hands in frustration that Americans could be so stupid as to vote in their millions for such “idiots”. It’s very hard over here to feel we are getting an unbiased view of US politicians in our news reports (or any foreign politicians for that matter), so I tend to pay very little attention since I don’t have to vote for a US President.

However, when I heard Mitt Romney being referred to as a “moron” (a play on words on his Mormon faith), a “cretin” and a “bigot” in social media discussions based on anti-Romney news articles, I thought it all sounded a bit extreme. So I had a little look at what might provoke people to name-calling and, to be honest, downright religious hatred. I found that he’d been CEO of Bain & Co, a very well-respected international management consulting firm, and Governor of Massachusetts. I also found it interesting that, whilst he did not win the election, he was voted for by 59 million people (more than the entire population of England). So why was it we Brits took such a dislike to the man?

Partly, at least, it appeared to be the simple fact that he allowed moral principles arising from his faith as a Mormon to influence his policies in public life. Probably most notable was his opposition to legalization of same-sex marriage whilst Governor of Massachusetts, which was played out rather awkwardly in a tussle over whether same-sex partners could both be named on birth certificates of children they either adopted or had born to them. Whilst it was hard to see through the rhetoric and the editorial arm waving, and despite the fact that I could only find the sound-bite quotations, rather than the speeches and discussions reported more fully in context, it appeared to me that Mr Romney was acting out of principled belief and not out of bigotry.

And what of Nick Clegg, the British Deputy Prime Minister, who in September this year reportedly referred to opponents of the redefinition of marriage as “bigots” in the first draft of a speech in September (later redrafting to refer to “some people”)?

The gay rights charity Stonewall has an annual awards evening that includes an award for ‘Bigot of the Year’. The 2012 award was won by Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland.

As someone who is very concerned about, and opposed to, the proposed redefinition of marriage to include long term same-sex partnerships, in response to these kind of comments I have to ask myself, am I a bigot? Am I being bigoted in saying that I think that homosexual relationships are wrong, and therefore the concept of same-sex ‘marriage’ is wrong? I’m an evangelical Christian, rather than Mormon or Roman Catholic, but since I come to a similar position on this issue via similar logic, if Mitt Romney and Keith O’Brien can be labeled bigots then so should I. Should I be concerned? Offended?

Yes and No.

Of course, the position that views same-sex relationships as wrong on the basis of religious conviction is not by definition bigoted. One definition I found says that bigotry is the “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” Disagreeing, begging to differ, debating, defending a position, having a different view, has never been seen as necessarily intolerant. So given that I’m not trying gag the gay rights lobby, however vociferous they are, and I’m not trying to outlaw anyone from saying that homosexuality is right or ok, and I’m not unwilling to engage in debate, there is no way I can legitimately be called a bigot.

The historic legal position, or even the taboo, which was intolerant of homosexual practice also cannot be labeled bigoted, since bigotry relates to intolerance of having opinions. Western (democratic) society was intolerant of homosexual practice because the majority believed it to be wrong and perverted. That is simply what happens when you have a moral principle: people who transgress are either criminalized or culturally marginalized, or face some consequences, democratically decided. For example, we have other moral principles that are still agreed on today – e.g. we don’t think it’s right to cheat, so the Lance Armstrongs of the world face regulatory consequences for their actions as well as the condemnation of the media. But we’re not bigoted against cheating. (On the other hand, if someone wanted to argue that doping is not cheating, and should be legalized, fair enough, let them argue their case. And it would be bigoted not to listen to that case!)

So it’s not a concern to be labeled a ‘bigot’ from the point of view of the fact that it’s clearly incorrect. However, it is a concern and it is offensive, because it shows that legitimate debate has given way to name-calling.

But as I outlined in my series ‘Whose RulesRule?’ on this blog, name-calling is all but inevitable when we are bereft of common ground or a higher authority on which to appeal. Christians appeal to the moral standards of God Almighty, the Creator and Ruler of the entire Universe, as the basis for deciding what is right and wrong. Secular non-religious Westerners only have themselves to look to as their ultimate authority.

My fear, as I mentioned in one of those previous articles, is that whilst Christians are not bigoted and intolerant (in the main – although there are a minority of Christians who do not act in a loving way), the opposition from unbelievers is becoming bigoted and intolerant. It is becoming culturally unacceptable - open to condemnation, victimization and oppression - to say what one thinks, especially in the realms of sexual freedom, feminism or pre-birth human rights (or even, let’s be honest, in the realms of the creation of the universe).

To the secular non-religious Westerner the existence, in their democratic society, of opinions that would threaten to stifle their freedom to choose their own moral path is becoming intolerable. Because of our Christian heritage they want to be able to argue the case, but find that with no common ground their opponents are immovable. And therefore, they resort to the name-calling and fun-poking that we have seen over the past 40-50 years, and are now moving to the active oppression and intolerance we have been increasingly seeing over the past 10-15 years.

How then should we proceed?

My first appeal is to readers who are not Christians: Please don’t be intolerant and bigoted. Please don’t write Christians off as such. We are not stupid, nasty or hateful (as I was labeled in one social media discussion). Rather I appeal to you to engage with the Christian worldview. Find out why we believe what we believe, and find out what it is that we really believe. Find out why Jesus Christ is the focus of God’s love and yet is the most divisive character in history. One place to start, which is only convenient because you’re here on the blog already, is my other articles on morality – the ‘Whose Rules Rule?’ series. Send comments and questions. Discuss. Engage.

My final appeal is to readers who are Christians: Please don’t be discouraged when you are verbally attacked and called a bigot, homophobe, fundamentalist, Bible-basher, stupid, nasty, hateful, ridiculous, religious nut, etc, etc. Our Saviour told us to expect it. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven…” (Luke 6:22-23)

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19)

If the unbelieving world with which we come into contact does not hate Jesus then they have not understood him properly. Once we do our job of explaining and showing Jesus to the world, they will either hate him or repent. If we leave them to see Him as another version of Buddha or Confucius, a kind man who teaches us to be nice to each other, then they will not repent and then will not have any chance to be saved. Once they understand that Jesus’ purpose in coming was to turn them back from their sinful rejection of God’s rule over their lives, because they love their autonomy, they will hate all that He stands for… and the people who preach His name.

Remember the Jews liked the miracle-working-Jesus, but hated the sin-defeating-Jesus. Remember the Roman emperors didn’t mind the hard-working-Rabbi-Jesus, but they hated the worship-me-alone-Jesus. And they hated Him, called Him names, and killed Him. And He’s the One we are called to take up our cross and follow.

So let’s make sure that we don’t shy away from talking about sin, about what’s right and what’s wrong, calling people to repentance, because that’s what Jesus is all about. And as always, let’s “run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or faint-hearted.” (Hebrews 12:1-3)

Jimmy Saville, Lance Armstrong - not a time for faith in human nature

I remember Sir Jimmy Saville on TV as I was growing up. Jim’ll Fix It was a show that I tuned into every Saturday evening, eager to see what wonders he was going to work for lucky children. He seemed kind, jolly, genuinely happy to be making kids smile. And one of the great things about him was that he used his fame and celebrity status to raise money and raise awareness for children’s charities and hospitals – things that he never got paid for.

But now (October 2012) barely a year after his death at the age of 84 his reputation is in tatters because of growing accusations of sexual abuse involving teenage girls. How let down we feel, those of us who looked up to him in our youth. There is a temptation to deny the truth of the allegations, I don’t want it to be true, but the evidence (whilst not yet tested in court) seems too overwhelming.

And then there is Lance Armstrong, the winner of seven Tour de France between 1999 and 2005, the guy who conquered cancer to come back to the top of cycling, the co-founder of the Livestrong Foundation, which has raised around $500m for cancer research and support. A living legend so we thought.

And then came the US Anti-Doping Agency investigation, which found that he had been the ringleader in the systematic distribution and taking of performance enhancing drugs in his team, throughout his time at the top. Many of us didn’t want to believe it, even the International Cycling Union at first didn’t want to believe it, but 1,000 pages of evidence, including 26 detailed witness statements have forced the truth out. Armstrong has now been stripped of his Tour de France titles. And such was the pervasiveness of the doping culture in cycling at the time that those titles cannot be handed down to anyone in the second and third place positions, because most of them have questions hanging over them too.

What are we to think? If our heroes turn out to be, well, less than heroic, what hope is there for us? And do their bad deeds cast a shadow over the good that they brought about? Does that good – the progress in cancer treatment, the happiness and healing brought to children - become tainted because it came from people tainted with evil?

October 2012 definitely is not a time to have faith in human nature. Human nature, it appears, if we measure it by those we think are at the top of their game, is a pretty horrid mixture.

Sometimes we’ve taken a much too optimistic view of the progress we’ve made as human beings. Not in scientific knowledge and technological advances, which are undeniable, but in our capacity for making the right moral choices. Sometimes we have tried hard to believe that we were making progress there too, with humanity getting better, giving more, caring more, persecuting less, tolerating more, living more peacefully. But it’s all self-deception. It’s less than a century since the bloodiest war the world has ever known. It’s less than a century since Stalin’s genocide in the name of progress and equality. We’re still processing the war crimes from the civil war in the Balkans twenty years ago. We’re still reeling from the atrocities uncovered in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. We had Idi Amin in Uganda, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Syria now takes its turn in showing how brutal human beings can be. And lest we forget, our troops are still in Afghanistan to try to suppress terrorist extremist groups that would threaten our hard-won peace. And in the West, we have riots and looting, widespread sexually transmitted disease, and increasing social fragmentation. How is the 21^st century any better than the 1^st century or 1,000 years before that? The same evil is perpetrated, but with TVs and communications technology that enables us to see it wherever it happens in the world.

And on top of that we know deep down that we too are capable of some horrible, evil things too. We can’t sit and tut-tut as we watch the news, thinking how much worse other people are, much as we like to. In fact we love to. And we love to do that because it allows us to place the blame for all of humanity’s woes onto somebody else – the uneducated, the lazy, the sexually stupid (not that they are more promiscuous or adulterous or perverse, but they don’t take adequate protective measures), the religious fanatics, the fundamentalists, the psychologically unstable. But if we’re honest, we have the same flaws.

Jimmy Saville and Lance Armstrong are examples of people who make us feel uncomfortable, because they were as good as we liked to think of ourselves, and we can’t ignore the good that they’ve done. They were not religious fanatics, psychologically unstable, lazy or uneducated. They were just like us, but they had the opportunity to indulge some of the things that we can’t. And they went for it big time.

I don’t know why, but modern non-religious Westerners, even in the face of all that, still do not like to talk about the concept of sin. They are quite content to talk about evil, because evil is an extreme word for extremely bad people, not people like us.

And this is the crucial point for the non-religious West. We have to grasp the reality and pervasiveness of sin, around us and within, affecting each and every human being. Far from having faith in human nature, we need to recognize that human nature is tainted irreparably. Michael Jackson was right when he pointed the finger at the ‘man in the mirror’. We are all much less than perfect.

Why do we need to face these facts? Why do we need to feel the guilt and despair of seeing the reality of our sin? Because without that we will know nothing of our need for salvation. And without knowing our need we will not cry out for salvation. And if we don’t cry out for salvation, God – who alone is able to save – will not give us salvation. We need to know that sin is the core of all the problems of the world, all the problems of our relationships, our temptations, our failures and all the problems of our own personality.

God graciously gave His Law so that we would know both His hatred of sin and the reality of sin in our lives. But He also gave us His only Son to save us from our sin if we repent and believe in him. Mary was told by the angel before his birth, “you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21)

Jesus Christ is celebrated and worshipped by His people because He has saved them from the worst enemy, the thing that would have resulted in their eternal damnation under the wrath of the holy God. Sin is what separates us from God. And the gospel of Jesus Christ – the good news – is that Jesus took to the wrath of God upon himself, the penalty that we deserved, for the sins of his people, so that we might be reconciled to Him.

So let’s face facts. Humanity is fallen. Humanity cannot save itself. Humanity on its own cannot build a better future. Everything we do is tainted with sin. And let’s turn to Him who alone has the answer – not Lance Armstrong, not Jimmy Saville, but Jesus Christ the Son of God, our suffering saviour.

Hardships to make you holy

I have taken recently to reading books by Christians past and present, who suffer and suffered in some way. I guess it's because I consider myself to be suffering with my illness and the constant battle to stay employed. I know I'm not suffering to the same degree as the people I’m reading about - Joni Eareckson Tada, Corrie Ten Boom, Helen Roseveare, William Tyndale, John G. Paton, Adoniram Judson, C.S. Lewis - but I want to learn from the way they handled their greater suffering, so that I can learn to better bear and understand my own smaller hardships.

One thing I used to think, having a strong view of God's sovereign providence, was that God uses hardships to prepare us for greater service, for some great ministry, or some great success in the future (a bit like the great examples named above). I then came to wonder what happens when we come to that greater ministry or that great success. What does God do in our lives then? Well, I supposed He must prepare us for even greater things… until the logical conclusion, when we die, are we prepared for heaven? So perhaps the whole of our lives is a preparation for our place in the New Creation.

But what does that mean?

I have come to learn that that means holiness, and that holiness and sanctification are the most important purpose behind all that God does in our lives. Yes, He is working to spread the gospel. Yes, He is using His people, using their suffering, to call attention to the glory of Christ. But what He wants most from us in response to everything that He brings into our lives – hardships and happiness - is holiness.

Sure, God is making things happen. Nothing happens that is not part of His sovereign purpose and plan. But in everything He purposes to happen, His fundamental purpose is for our holiness, so that we may bring Him greater glory.

J.I. Packer said in A Passion for Holiness, ‘We must be clear in our minds that whatever further reasons there may be why God exposes us to the joys and sorrows, fulfillments and frustrations, delights and disappointment, happinesses and hurts, that make up the emotional reality of our lives, all these experiences are part of his curriculum for us in the school of holiness, which is his spiritual gymnasium for our reshaping and rebuilding in the moral likeness of Jesus Christ.’ (1992, Crossway Books, pp16-17)

And that is hard! It’s is the hardest thing I find about the Christian life. I am so incredibly imperfect, more than any human being will hopefully ever fully know – even my wife… and she knows all of my imperfections very well! I don’t give up on my sin easily. But hardships tend to focus the mind somewhat on what really matters.

But even my suffering authors find it difficult too. Helen Roseveare, in 'Give Me This Mountain', writes of when she first went to be a missionary in Congo in the 1950s. She recalls being told by an experienced colleague, “If you think you have come to the mission field because you are a little better than others, or as the cream of your church, or because of your medical degree, or for the service you can render the African church, or even for the souls you may see saved, you will fail. Remember, the Lord has only one purpose ultimately for each of us, to make us more like Jesus. He is interested in your relationship with Himself. Let Him take you and mould you as He will; all the rest will take its rightful place.”

So God does not just care about getting more people into church. He cares mostly about the way that we follow Him in our day-to-day lives, and how that overflows in love to those around us, whoever they may be.

Now, some may be unconvinced that God has any purpose whatsoever in hardships. They don’t see Him as being in control of everything, so, to me at least, that means there cannot be purpose in anything that happens. In general terms a person can only have a purpose for something that they consciously do. So if we don’t see God causing/allowing things happening in the world, then there cannot be a divine purpose in the things going on in the world.

So I just want to give a couple of examples of where the Bible speaks in that way.

First, 2 Corinthians 1:8-11, “For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again. You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many.”

Here Paul is saying that God allowed them to be “utterly burdened” beyond their strength, but that burdening, that despair, had a purpose. And that purpose was “to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead.” I suppose you could argue that Paul doesn’t explicitly say that God purposed their hardship, only that it occurred to make them rely on God. But I don’t buy that! When we say that something has a purpose, or something happened for a reason, then there must be a person behind it. And who else would want the apostles to rely on God more? Satan? Their Roman or Jewish persecutors? No! God is the only one who would have that purpose.

And then, Hebrews 12:7, “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?”  This is explicit. God is the one doing the discipline, the training, and the training is in the form of hardship. And what purpose does this training have? Vv10-11, “God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace…”

And with utmost clarity, Paul tells us in Romans 8:29 that we were “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” That’s what God’s chosen people are for – not firstly to do, but to be – to be conformed to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ, who went through the ultimate suffering.

God has a purpose in the hardships of His people, and that purpose is holiness. And that brings me almost to tears.

Firstly to realize that all this difficulty, the emotional turmoil, the seemingly constant unsettling lifestyle adjustments, are purposed by a loving God, my God, my Father. And not just purposed so that I can be part of a church, part of a kingdom, involved in a work. But purposed so that I may share in the holiness of the Creator, the only Real God. This is like a king saying to an adopted son, “I don’t just want to bring you to live in my house. I want you to share in the character of the royal family.” God is infinitely good, perfect, beautiful. And so sharing in His holiness is sharing in all these perfections. It’s like being called to be nestled in God, part of His royal family, sharing not just in His creation, but in God Himself. That is truly wonderful.

Finally, it upsets me to know the corruption of my heart, that I am so resistant to this good purpose. God wants for me to have the best in the world, to share in His holiness. He has, at great cost, adopted me as one of His sons, to make me part of His family. And He is willing to get serious with me, putting me through some tough training, to bring me up to standard. I should be thrilled with that. But I’m not. I continue to cherish my sin and bad habits, like a footballer who knows that the coach just wants to make them a better player but hates the hard training sessions and prefers to continue in laziness and bad practice.

May God give me grace to accept the discipline, and to rise to the training, and to rely more fully on Him, my wonderful God and Father.

God is the way He is

If we are created by God – and not the other way around - why do we feel like we can challenge, and take exception to, aspects of His character and His work? 

What made me think about this was the way some people have reacted to my getting ill again. One or two people who care a lot about me have reacted really angrily. How can God allow this? Surely we don’t deserve this? How can anyone dare suggest that God allows these things for our own good? How can any good come from this situation? I’m sometimes not sure whether they are suggesting that my serious illness is evidence that there is no God, or whether they are saying that they just don’t like God if He lets ‘good’ people suffer. 

But it triggered a thought (which means I am not directing any of what follows to those people I mentioned above) that the suffering of the world sometimes washes over us, without bothering us too much, until it directly affects us. Why suddenly get upset with God or lose faith because bad things are happening to us? Bad things are happening the world over to millions of people. 

And we can’t dissociate God from any of this suffering, as if He only does things we like and the bad things are outside His control. 

This is the God who decreed that death should be experienced by every single human being, because of the sin of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:19). This the God who destroyed every single man, woman and child – in fact every living thing - on the face of the earth, except for 8 people and a big boat full of creatures (Noah et al), with a cataclysmic flood (Genesis 7:4). This is the God who decreed painful toil for mankind because of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17), and the one who decreed pain in childbearing for women because of Eve’s sin (Genesis 3:16). 

This is the God who killed all the firstborn of the Egyptians when they would not let the Israelites free (Exodus 12:29). 

This is the God who punished the evil of the Canaanites with annihilation (Deuteronomy 9:4-5). 

I could go on. Ultimately this is the God who will send unrepentant sinners to Hell, showing His wrath upon them for their rejection of His Word (John 3:36). 

But someone might point out, rightly, that these are examples of bad people suffering at God’s hand. What about good people? Leaving aside the Bible's assertion that 'there is no-one righteous, not even one' (Romans 3:10), have we also ignored the fact that good people suffer, and that the Bible does not flinch from this? 

There’s always been the example of Job to turn to. He was an upright and righteous man (Job 1:1). And God allowed Satan to afflict him with bereavement, financial ruin and painful sickness. In fact, in Job’s mind his affliction is under the direct supervision of God (Job 1:21-22). 

And it’s not just Old Testament stuff. In John 21:18-19 Jesus tells Peter that he is going to suffer a death sentence similar to his own ‘to glorify God’. Paul was given ‘a thorn in the flesh’ by the Lord (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). 

And of course, we believe in a God who sent His own Son to suffer injustice, betrayal and an excruciating death on a roman cross. 

Suffering and pain have been part of God’s universe, and part of His plan, since Adam and Eve fell into sin all those years ago. So isn’t it a bit selfish to expect God to keep us healthy and happy, but direct the suffering and pain to people we don’t know? 

But the answer may come back, ‘why would you want to believe in a God who can act in this way?’ There are many different ways of responding to that. One starting point is to say that since there is only one God, then this is the only one worth believing in, because He’s the only real God. The fact of His existence is, in my view, inescapable. 

And He is who He is, no matter what I think. I can’t really pick and choose aspects of God’s character to be true, and forget the rest. God has revealed Himself, His character and purpose – as comprehensively as we are able to take on board. It’s all or nothing. The Bible portrays God as perfectly good, righteous and holy, and as just, judging and punishing; full of love but showing wrath to those who rebel against Him. Unless we accept the truth of all of these aspects, we will have an absolutely false view of God, and we will not be able to say that we believe in the God of the Bible – the only real God. 

But there is also a very great difference between believing in God, in the sense of believing He exists, and loving Him. James says that, ‘even the demons believe’ in God, ‘and shudder!’ (James 2:19). 

To those who reject the very idea of God, I say, try to come up with a consistent account of how you know anything, the nature of reality, the meaning of moral statements. Try to work out a meaningful explanation for why you care so much about me or anyone else, why suffering and hardship upsets you so much. Without God it’s impossible, and you finish in absurdity. 

To those who believe God is there, but just don’t like the way He runs the world, I say, He is your creator and you owe it to yourself to fairly listen to what He has to say about how hardship and suffering fit into the order of His universe. If you assume that what you desire is always what you should get, and that this life should always give you fortune, happiness and good health, then you will get a shock, because the real God does not promise that. But if you are prepared to submit to Him and faithfully wait for Him to bring you into an eternal world full of happiness, good health and joy – in the presence of the real God Himself – you will be prepared to face anything. Jesus Christ – through His suffering and death – enables you to have that hope if you trust Him. If Christ’s road to eternal joy involved pain and suffering, why should I expect any less? As C.S.Lewis is portrayed as saying in the film Shadowlands, "Why love, if losing hurts so much? I have no answers anymore: only the life I have lived. Twice in that life I've been given the choice: as a boy and as a man. The boy chose safety, the man chooses suffering. The pain now is part of the happiness then. That's the deal."

Faith for diagnosis and cure

Very recently the doctors diagnosed that the non-Hodgkins lymphoma, from which I have been free for two years, has returned. As at this point I have some mild symptoms, but nothing that yet stops me living normally day-to-day. I only went to the doctor really because those symptoms, though mild, felt exactly like just before I was taken ill with the disease the first time around. 

But the point is that even though I feel essentially fine, with a few aches and pains, the diagnosis from the experts is that I am very ill and that I need very intensive treatment in order to completely cure me. 

Given that I don’t feel like it’s that serious, it takes faith to believe what the doctors say. In order to submit myself to treatment I have to believe that the doctors know what they are talking about and that the diagnosis is correct. This is especially true this time because the symptoms are not yet serious. The doctors can talk about the evidence they have, but I still have to take their word that what they say is evidence is really evidence. 

I also have to believe that the treatment will be helpful and represents my best chance to avoid the worst consequences of my disease. And again, I have to take the doctors’ word on that. 

It strikes me that it’s a little bit similar to when we talk about the Christian gospel to people. We try to explain that the diagnosis is bad, but curable. According to Jesus we are heading towards the wrath of God because of our selfish, self-centred, rejection of God and His ways. Even though you may feel fine, although perhaps niggled by the odd disappointment or upset, you are not fine. The sin in your life is a serious illness that needs to be dealt with. 

And then we explain to people that the cure is to have faith in Jesus Christ, repenting from old sins and selfish ways, and living for Him. In order to submit to that cure, we must believe both that the cure is available and effective, and that the diagnosis is correct. 

I guess it’s not exactly an earth-shattering observation! 

Some people have more of a problem believing the diagnosis – we don’t naturally like to believe there are unseen problems that can be very serious. We like to think that if we feel fine then we are fine. Because if our feelings are not an accurate measure of our health, then how can we really ever know whether we are in danger of dying or not? That means we have to rely on someone else to tell us, and that means we are not self-sufficient. The same is true in the spiritual realm as in the physical – we should listen to God’s diagnosis in the spiritual realm, just as we should listen to the doctors’ diagnosis in the physical. 

Some people don’t have a problem believing the diagnosis – mainly those whose senses align with reality, those who feel as bad as they really are. In a spiritual sense, there are those who don’t have a problem admitting they are sinners because they acutely feel the guilt and they know they deserve to face some sort of punishment. But they don’t believe there is an adequate cure available. They can’t accept that God may have dealt with their sin – by punishing His own Son instead. But God promises that whoever repents and puts their trust in Jesus Christ will be saved, and will have eternal life. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.’ (John 3:16) 

I suppose that one worthwhile observation to leave you with is that whether we talk about the diagnosis or the treatment/cure, in both the physical and the spiritual realm, it is better to trust in those who look objectively at your body or soul. If we trust our own feelings about how well we are or how likely we are to be cured then we can tend either towards complacency or despondency. 

God shows us in His Word, the Bible, that we are all sinners, and that we are all facing an eternity of Hell apart from His saving grace. He tells us that Jesus Christ came ‘to seek and to save the lost’ (Luke 19:10). His Word is more reliable than our feelings. 

So I urge you to believe the diagnosis and the cure that are told us by God Himself, the Creator, the One who knows everything… and if you believe to go on believing, no matter what.

It's back

I quite suddenly and unexpectedly find a new chapter of my life and my family’s life opening up before me. 

I am posting this on my blog partly because it seemed worthy of a little bit more than a facebook status update. However, I pondered a long while trying to decide whether to post anything. The biggest reason for that is because my kids see what I put on facebook, and they will be affected by whatever I write to update everyone else. 

The fact is, to put it bluntly, I am having a relapse of the non-hodgkins lymphoma that laid me low in 2010. This will require retreatment, more intensive this time. It's disappointing, to say the least, as the majority of people with variety of non-Hodgkins lymphoma that I had ("Diffuse Large B Cell") are cured first time around. I have some more tests to go through first, but chemotherapy treatment is currently planned to start on Monday 10th September.

On the more positive side, they seem to have picked it up earlier this time. I am functioning normally at the moment, whereas at the start of 2010 I spent almost 6 weeks in hospital and lost 20kg (3 stone) of weight before they diagnosed what was wrong. 

There will be time to reflect more deeply and to share more at later points, God willing, but for now this is news that needs some time to sink in. Life for my family will change again, that’s for sure. For one thing, I may have time for more blogging!

What I will say is this: whilst this is not good news, it is another challenge in a life full of challenges, and an opportunity to grow. I believe that life for a Christian believer is a training ground, and hardships are the exercises that make us stronger. A sports coach will design training sessions incorporating 'progressions', so that athletes can master certain skills before adding complexities and further levels of difficulty. This is my family’s next progression. We must face this challenge with the knowledge the Master Coach is guiding us, encouraging us, promising His help, and He intends it for good. 

“Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)

The risk of offending people

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Twelve

Should we try to avoid offending people?

This is the last part of this series and I would be surprised if I haven't offended anyone by what I've been saying over the past few months. As I've said throughout the series, talking about morality can be unpopular in a culture that is based on the ultimate final authority of self. A detached discussion is almost impossible, since we are moral beings, when most people see themselves as ultimately in control of what defines right and wrong in their own lives.

And yet this is something that Christians are rightly very sensitive about. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:32, "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God," meaning give no offense to anyone. Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." (Matthew 7:1) We know we have good news to share with people, we want to share it, and offending people causes them to shut their ears and refuse to listen to it. We don't want to judge people, because we know that we too are sinners and are only saved through God's grace in Christ. To try to remain at peace with those around us, so that we may have opportunity to share the good news of the grace of God in Christ with them, is a very laudable aim.

So I want to make two points. First, I want both Christians and modern non-religious people to understand that simply talking about morality, saying that something is wrong, immoral, unrighteous, or sinful, is not in itself being judgmental. A judgmental attitude involves portraying ourselves as better than someone else, looking down on them. Romans 14:10 makes this clear: "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God." Paul equates passing judgment on someone with despising them, and his reason for saying that it's wrong is that we are all equally deserving of judgment. That ties in with something I talked about in parts 7 and 8.

That's why I have spent such a long time trying to get across that the difference between Christian morality and non-religious morality needs to be understood. Non-religious people understand discussions about morality within their own frame of reference, and that is that all morality is relative and guided by our personal preferences. Christian morality, however, does not fit into that. We have an objective basis for our moral code.

So simply saying something is wrong is not being judgmental. Saying something is wrong in a way that despises other sinners and puts ourselves in a superior position is being judgmental, and is not speaking in the way Jesus would want us to. So we need to learn a compassionate way of speaking about morality, one that makes it clear that we are equally under the law and equally sinners, and that the reason for our talking about morality is in order to lead them into the way of salvation. We want to see them saved, we want them to have eternal joy and life, we want them to find true fulfilment. But they will not get that without recognising and repenting of their sin.

And neither can we say we are better because we have repented and turned to Jesus in faith. Faith is itself a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8,9). We are, without the work of God within our hearts, dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-7). Jesus himself said that we must be "born again" (John 3:3) in order to see the kingdom of God - in other words something must happen to us that we cannot initiate ourselves. Our salvation, as Christians, is dependent entirely on God's grace.

If the people we speak to will listen carefully and graciously, then they may at least understand this point, even if they don't come to accept God's authority in all things including morality. On the other hand, it may lead them to take even greater offense.

You see - and this is my second point - even when people see clearly that we don't judge people automatically by making moral statements about right and wrong, the Christian message may still be offensive to them. Paul talks elsewhere about, "the offense of the cross" (Galatians 5:11).

Why would the wooden cross that was used to kill the Lord Jesus Christ be offensive? Because it demonstrates the justice of God, the kind of wrath He pours out on disobedience. It demonstrates that no one can see themselves as automatically "in" with Him, but they must go through His Son, Jesus Christ. The cross demands repentance, it demands we put our faith in someone who is genuinely better than us, genuinely greater than us. He is perfect, and yet He suffered death for our sake. But we don't want to be told what to do, who to have faith in. We don't want to submit to anyone. We love our sins, our sinful personal preferences. Repentance is an utterly repugnant idea to us.

We hope that people will accept our message, but we should not expect everyone to do so. Paul said of his own ministry, "For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." (2 Corinthians 2:15-16) In other words, if God is working light and life within a person, He will use our words to save them. But if not, our words will be to them an offensive, deathly stench that will only push them further away.

Therefore, we should not tone down our message simply because people are offended. When people are offended we need to understand that they are feeling threatened by the very core truth of the gospel - that we are responsible to God and we have failed Him and deserve His wrath. That is actually a good thing. Without seeing that, no one would be able to understand the need for faith and repentance.

To put it another way, following the parable I gave last time, if I were to offend people by warning them that they are going the wrong way on a countryside walk, and are heading towards a cliff edge and towards certain doom, what should concern me most? The fact that those people are annoyed with me? Or the fact that they are continuing towards the edge of the cliff? What would I do? Stop talking about the fact they're going the wrong way, because they want me to shut up? Or keep talking, finding any way possible to get them to realise that they are in danger?

So I hope we are all, by now, challenged to keep talking about morality, to base our moral statements/arguments firmly on what is in God's Word, to use the opportunity to expose the bankruptcy of non-religious foundations of thinking, to recognise where the offense we cause is because of the truth, and to love the gospel and love our Saviour all the more.

To Jesus Christ be all the glory. Amen.

Loving by talking about sin

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Eleven

 

Last time I was trying, poorly in my own judgment, to contrast the outcomes of non-religious morality (selfishness and oppression) with Christian morality (love, charity and care for everyone not matter how sinful). I really wanted to show that for a Christian to say that something is wrong, even while they attempt to ensure that it is made illegal, does not mean that they will be unkind to the people who do those wrong things. We too are sinners, under the same moral judgment of God. But having repented and accepted the Lord Jesus, we take seriously the command to love fellow sinners, fellow humans. We don't take it personally, as the non-religious person does, when people do things we believe are wrong.

The greatest demonstration of love was the love of God for sinners, in giving His only Son to die in our place, so that through faith and repentance we might be set right with Him and have eternal life. "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)

If God loved sinners that much, we should also love sinners (i.e. everybody). We saw that last time.

But what is the greatest demonstration of love that Christians can show?

As a kind of parable, consider a man who knows an organisation that will give anyone immense riches if they simply come and ask. This organisation is wealthy enough to do that for everyone. What would be the most loving thing that man could do? Surely it would be to tell everyone?

Consider another parable. A man can see a bunch of people who have inadvertently passed a "danger!" sign and are wandering towards a hidden cliff edge. What is the most loving thing that he can do? Surely it would be to tell them!

Hence, as Christians, when we see people being sinful and immoral and bringing God's wrath upon themselves (which starts in this life and is finalised at the Last Judgment), while we know God, through Christ, will give anyone eternal life who comes to Him in repentance and faith, what is the most loving thing we can do? Surely it is to tell people.

That's one of the main reasons why moral debates about homosexuality, adultery and marriage, for instance, are so important within the modern church. It is not because we want to judge others by our own standards. It is because God judges by His own standards (which are clear), and we rob people of the opportunity to repent before God, and obtain eternal life in a perfected creation, if we do not call wrong things wrong. For Christians to avoid moral statements or water them down for the sake of peace in a secular society is unloving. For Christians to make strong statements about sin and morality is not unloving if it is done with the good news in mind, that all sinners may have eternal life if they repent and trust in Jesus Christ, who was punished in our place. It is the highest love we can show.

Love is....

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Ten

I've been talking for what seems like a long time about morality, sin and the consequences of it. To be honest it was riots in the summer of 2011 that partly sparked the thoughts. Or rather it was the reaction of the respectable middle class that made me think. We have to bear in mind that some of the commentators who were most horrified and condemnatory in seeing purposeless looting and violence were the same people who poke fun at religion and try to force Richard Dawkins' atheism on us at every opportunity. They are the same people who tell Christians that we can't say that homosexuality is wrong. They tell us we can't protest against abortion. They say that we shouldn't even talk to other people about our religion. And it's not just that they laugh at us or ignore us. For Christians to say that certain things are wrong is now practically illegal - witness for instance Christian guesthouse owners, Mike and Susanne Wilkinson, who were sued in 2010 because they refused to allow a gay couple to share a double room. The same people on the one hand condemn Christians for calling certain behaviour wrong, and on the other hand condemn the behaviour of others as wrong. Why should it be offensive for Christians to talk about right and wrong, but perfectly correct for non-religious people to talk about their own version of right and wrong?

It's the kind of situation that confuses Christians. Should we continue to be upfront and call wrong things wrong? What really is our basis for deciding right and wrong? Should we echo the condemnation of our non-religious neighbours when they speak out against certain types of sin, whilst keeping quiet about other sins?

What I've tried to outline is that Christians and non-religious people see moral statements in completely different ways. Non-religious people see themselves as the final authority in matters of right and wrong for themselves, and therefore when people do things they think are wrong it makes them angry. They are personally offended. They are also personally offended when people, like Christians, say that things are wrong that they don't believe are wrong. It challenges their authority. They worry that if enough people agree with the Christians, their actions will not be tolerated. They feel their freedom personally threatened.

On the other hand Christians see themselves as part of humanity, equally responsible to God, equally failing, equally sinners, equally hell-deserving, equally called to repentance and offered forgiveness through Jesus Christ. We are not personally offended or threatened when people transgress God's standards. We are concerned both for them and for the influence that immorality has on society and culture. We want to make our nation one that pleases God, and has His blessing because we uphold His rules. And we want to see people repent and receive salvation and eternal life. And therefore we shouldn't stop talking clearly about moral standards.

We've seen the emptiness and flimsiness of non-religious morality. But I want to look from a different angle this time.

What does non-religious morality give rise to? And what does Christian morality give rise to? It is common amongst the non-religious to speak of Christian morality as giving rise to oppression, whilst their own moral systems give rise to freedom. My argument will be the opposite.

Non-religious people see themselves as their own final authority. And their personal pleasure and freedom to enjoy whatever gives them pleasure is ultimately important to them. If they can just get on with it, they will. But if they feel barriers and taboos restricting them, they will work on tearing those down. And once they have torn them down they will ensure they stay down by the oppression of those who believe their behaviour is sinful and/or harmful.

That's what we've seen, in the UK at least, over the past 60 years or so. In the 1960s there were movements geared to tearing down all sorts of taboos, traditions and rules mostly to do with sexual freedom. Enough people got together to challenge the current norms of society, and it became permissible to kill unborn children. At first, of course, it was restricted to certain circumstances, but as time has gone on, because the restrictions were arbitrary in the first place, those restrictions have been relaxed. It became socially permissible (although not immediately normal) to have sex before marriage, not just within it. And as that became more and more common, during the 70s and 80s, we have been forced to set complex laws around civil partnerships, next of kin arrangements, and so forth. During the 80s and 90s, because sexual freedoms from the 60s were based on pleasure and personal freedom, those who had embraced homosexual lifestyles started to feel less compulsion to hide that. And so we had a long string of people 'coming out'.

As we reached the end of the twentieth century, and over the past ten years or so, the rejection of previous Christian norms has turned into the push for anti-Christian laws. There has clearly been democratic pressure consistently over the past 50-60 years to detach laws regarding sexual freedom from their Christian principles. However, since this has not happened fast enough for some, I believe that the media and political system has been hijacked. Spurious research is constantly wheeled out. Any science or psychology that questions the benefits or points out the dangers of permissive sexual lifestyles, homosexuality or abortion, is rubbished, shouted down, ignored or misreported. People who mention such scientific, or empirical, evidence are sidelined or sacked if they work in the media, medicine, education or social services.

And as if that were not enough, it has now become illegal to question the morality of certain behaviour. Sexual freedom is now, by law, more important than religious freedom. If our politicians have their way, very soon it will be illegal for churches to refuse same sex civil partnerships to be performed on their premises - even if they disagree with them morally. This amounts to oppression. But it is the only avenue open to those using arbitrary, subjective, arguments to support their position. They will have their freedom to enjoy their pleasure, no matter what the cost to other people - Christians, unborn children, etc.

Some of the non-religious, liberal, intelligentsia (i.e. not necessarily the man on the street, but those plotting and scheming the downfall of Christian moral standards) may argue that oppression is exactly what the old Christian standards would have done to dissenters back in the nineteenth century. However, there is a difference between outlawing an activity because we believe that doing it is wrong, and making it illegal even to think or say something is wrong. Pornography, for instance, was outlawed because it was believed to be wrong. Those who broke the law were punished by the law. Nowadays it is getting to the stage where Christians are punished, not for living in a certain way, but for saying certain things are wrong or unhelpful. And we are not punished only by the law, but by social exclusion.

Of course, it's much more complex than I can talk about here. And I don't know much, I admit that. But that's the way it feels to me. The freedoms of the non-religious have led to the oppression of Christians.

And Melanie Phillips was right in the Daily Mail article I referred to when commenting on the 2011 summer riots (www.dailymail.co.uk). Those riots showed that our liberal, non-religious friends and neighbours have so broken down moral boundaries that they are stripped bare. Everyone can see that our moral code is arbitrary. The only consistent reason for the rioting and looting seemed to be 'because I can'. Young people really do believe that they are their own final authority, and that if they want something they should go and get it. The law, the police, the judicial system, may be a deterrent for most people, but given half a chance there are a good number of people who would do some horrific things to get ahead in life.

People have also often complained about the lack of volunteers to help in education, child care, caring for the elderly and mentally ill. Why? Because contemporary society is selfish - our final authority is ourselves, we live for our personal pleasure and why should we care about anyone else?

Rejection of Christian morality has got us this far, and it will continue to push us into barbarism and societal breakdown until we are woken from our stupor.

In contrast, Christians believe that God requires that we treat each other well - to put it in Biblical terms - love your neighbour as yourself. Christian morality is primarily unselfish.

Jesus told the famous parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) to illustrate that when we are told to love our neighbour, this means everyone, and that love is practical and sacrificial.

The Samaritan man in the parable went above and beyond anything anyone would expect for an injured man that he did not even know. He picked the man up off the side of the road, put him on his own donkey, carried him to a nearby inn and took care of him. When he had to leave he left money and told the innkeeper that he would reimburse any excess costs.

In contrast the religious people (a priest and a Levite) walked past the man on the other side of the road, lest they be contaminated and made unclean by either a dead body or the blood of an unknown person. They were more concerned for their own religious position than for a man in need.

The punch line for the Jews was that even a Samaritan, whom the Jews would have considered scum, could show the kind of love towards others that God expects.

And therefore Christians should be people who, taking this on board, do everything they can to help other people in need.

That is why Christians have been involved in some of the most culture-transforming charitable work in history - think of Wilberforce's campaigning for the abolition of the slave trade, Shaftsebury's campaigning for better working conditions for the poor, Barnardo's work for vulnerable children, and many others. Christians do these things because we are all equal and because God's second highest requirement (after honouring Him above everything, and indeed flowing from that) is to love and care for others.

Since Christians know that everyone is a sinner, everyone has done wrong in God's sight, everyone deserves hell, the fact that we identify certain actions as morally wrong should not take away our own moral obligation and desire to show love and care towards the people who do such things. That's why Christians should continue to care for AIDS victims or teenage parents, even though many get into their predicament through promiscuous and immoral sexual activity. That's why we should continue to care for homeless people, whatever they are like as individuals. That's why we should continue to visit people in prison, whether they have raped, murdered, defrauded or abused children. Wherever we find people in need (and we have seen that every person is in need - in need of Christ's saving grace), especially those neglected by society, Christians should be in the forefront of caring for them. Within our worldview that care does not compromise our standards of morality.

Of course, those examples are at the extreme. On a day to day level the love of our neighbour could be as mundane as lending someone a lawnmower, giving away unwanted clothes, giving a lift to the hospital, giving directions, putting the bins out while the neighbours are on holiday. There is no-one we should be unwilling to help out - even if you know they deal drugs, use prostitutes or defraud the state benefits system. (Of course, it goes without saying that our help should not enable people to go further in their wrongdoing, but I've given these examples to get us thinking about how far we would go and whether there are people we avoid.)

Christian morality, then, has given rise to much charity and help for the oppressed. Non-religious morality leads to selfishness and oppression of those who disagree.

All may come! All may be saved!

Whose Rules Rule? - Part Nine

We learnt last time that the equality of human beings within a Christian worldview involves not only being created as special by God, in His image, but certain other things that are universally true of human beings. As human beings we are universally tainted by sin - we have a sinful nature. Our natural inclination is to sin and to be self-centred, rather than God-centred. And as universally sinful we are all headed towards a Judgment Day that will not go well for us, and we would all be sent to Hell without some intervention. The fact that we all die is one sign of that truth. Physical death in human beings would not have happened except as a consequence of sin. But we face the prospect of something much worse than death.

The good news is that Jesus Christ, God's own Son visible 2,000 years ago as a human being, died to take away sin and take away wrath. His death was the punishment for the sins of all those who believe in Him. He took our place. He suffered not just the physical agony of the crucifixion, preceded by the beatings, lashings, ridicule and betrayal. He suffered the separation from God that we deserve - on the cross He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) That was a reference to a psalm of the old scriptures, but it reflected what He was going through on the cross. He was put out of God's presence, away from everything good. In a very real way, He suffered hell for us.

But He didn't suffer hell forever, as we would. He rose from the dead, with a perfected body, to show that He has conquered sin and death and Hell. Instead of those bad things, we can look forward to also rising from the dead and having a perfected body. And on that day we will also see a perfected creation, what the Bible calls "the New Heaven and New Earth" (Revelation 21; see also 2 Peter 3:13).

And Jesus did that all for us, for whoever will put their trust in Him.

The offer is universal, to every single human being on the planet. We are all equally graciously offered eternal life, forgiveness of our sins, renewed access to God (the source of all good) forever.

Going back to Romans chapter 5, verses 6-11, "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

"Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."

And later in verses 18-19, "just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

We are all sinners, we all deserve God's wrath, and we are all offered forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus Christ. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

The way that we get access to this free gift of eternal life is simply through repentance and faith (see Acts 3:19 and 16:31, for example).

Faith is believing not just the facts about Jesus, not just believing that the Bible is true. Faith is trusting in the person, Jesus Christ, that He has done the necessary work so that you can look forward to receiving the promised forgiveness and eternal life.

Repentance means you stop doing sinful things. It means you stop acting like you are the final authority, and you acknowledge that God is the final authority and you submit to His authority. You stop doing things because of your self-centred desires, and start doing things because you want to do what God wants.

Sometimes I feel like we ought to be specific occasionally. So, for instance, repentance means that if you are an abortionist, you give up your job killing babies. If you are a prostitute, you stop selling sex. If you engage in homosexual sex, you do so no longer. If you are sleeping with a person you are not married to, you stop. If you are violently aggressive, you become peaceful. If you are involved in fraud, you stop and be honest. If you are greedy and selfish, you start to be selfless and open. And I could go on…

Repentance means acknowledging the sins of the past as sins, and resolving never to return to them.

But it's also much more than specific lists of dos and don'ts. Repentance is about recognising that God is above all, and we should obey Him, and trust Him, and if that means giving up something that He says is sinful then we do it happily. Repentance means we no longer usurp God's authority in our own lives. We no longer act as if we are the final authority when it comes to right and wrong in our thoughts, words and deeds. We acknowledge God's final authority. And that is a fundamental shift in worldview. I hope that has become clear over the nine parts of this series so far.

Hence when Christians speak about morality, calling for purity and repentance, we do so from a standpoint of equality, not supposed superiority. We are not only equally created, but equally sinners, equally wrath-deserving and equally called to repentance and faith, equally offered forgiveness and eternal life.

Our view of ourselves should give us a humble attitude when we stand for God's morality, and maintain that abortion is wrong, pornography is wrong, etc, because we know that we are not superior in God's sight.

It is Jesus Christ alone who makes the difference.