David
Silvester is a local government councillor near Oxford in the UK, until
recently representing the UK Independence Party. At the beginning of 2014 he
(in)famously said in a letter to the Henley Standard, “Since the passage
of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, the nation has been beset by serious
storms and floods.
“One
recent one caused the worst flooding for 60 years. The Christmas floods were
the worst in 127 years. Is this just ‘global warming’ or is there something
more serious at work?
“The scriptures make it abundantly clear that
a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and
in naked breach of a coronation oath) will be beset by natural disasters such
as storms, disease, pestilence and war.”
The
response from the media and some sections of the public was censure and
derision. He was then expelled from UKIP and there was a petition asking him to
resign his council seat. Most comment I heard at the time falls into the
category of the secularist’s favourite way of dealing with religious (and
especially Christian) outspokenness – name-calling!
Mr
Silvester clearly considers himself a Christian and wants to make a public
stand for God’s glory and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and because of that I
consider him a brother and desire to stand alongside him in the gospel. The
derision and contempt he has suffered do not in themselves indicate to me that
his views are necessarily as wacky and misguided as they are made out to be.
But
do I stand with him, echoing his remarks? Or do I stand with him as a
Christian, whilst distancing myself from such “extreme” views? I think that
Christians, especially in the UK, would be well advised to ask themselves these
questions. Are we glad that someone has had the courage to speak up with clear
truth, even though unpopular? Or are we embarrassed that such extreme words
bring the church and the Christian faith further under the contempt of our
neighbours, friends, colleagues and journalists?
The
whole furore sparked two strands of thoughts for me, so I’ll consider them in
two separate posts. I do want to consider whether he is Biblically right in
what he says. And for Christians that question must be important, as it’s all
about what God is like – the God which we claim to be the only real true God.
But
first, I’m also intrigued by what underlies the reaction that he’s faced for
holding those views. What are people reacting to? And why have people written
him off with very little meaningful engagement with his beliefs?
I
will admit that what I say is only based on personal observation, and not huge
amounts of research. But it seems to me that what made David Silvester so
unpopular was two things:
Whose rules rule?
First,
his objection to gay marriage, which is not greatly tolerated at the best of
times, had a slightly unique dimension to it. David Silvester has been thrown
out of UKIP, whose MPs largely voted against same-sex marriage. So it wasn’t
just his opposition to same-sex marriage that has caused the furore. He went two
steps further, first by pointing out that God says that homosexuality is wrong, and second by claiming that
God is willing to enact some ‘consequences’ on the whole nation for simply
approving of it or turning a blind eye to it.
Lots
of people have expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, even some practising
homosexuals. However, to say that homosexuality is wrong is intolerable in the present cultural climate; and to say
that it is something deserving punishment
is clearly even more intolerable.
The
Daily Telegraph reported (5 Feb 2014)
that David Silvester had “deepened the rift… by calling on gays ‘to repent’”.
That is what got him dropped from UKIP, which initially said that he was
entitled to his religious opinions. The party were happy enough to oppose
same-sex marriage, presumably on the grounds (valid enough) that homosexuals
have legalised equivalent civil partnerships and therefore we don’t need to
redefine marriage for everyone else. That doesn’t involve belief that
homosexuality is wrong, that homosexuals need to repent, or that God has
anything to do with it whatsoever.
So
it appears to me that the main thing that made people angry about Mr
Silvester’s remarks was that he suggested something was really and objectively
wrong that they believe is right. They don’t like his suggestion that
homosexuality is wrong when they think there is nothing wrong with it.
My
Who’s Rules Rule? series examined the
generalised form of this point. Suffice to say here that the point at issue
between modern secular Westerners and their Christian contemporaries is just
this – that today’s unbelievers cannot stand the Christian assertion that human
beings (including individuals and governments) do not have the final say on
what is right and wrong, and that being out of step with God’s laws has serious
consequences in this life and the next. Today’s unbelievers want to make the
rules themselves… in fact it’s their fundamental rule that no one else sets the
rules but themselves!
The
other thing I pointed out in those articles is that secular Westerners
misunderstand what Christians mean when we say that something is wrong. Just
saying something is wrong, and calling for repentance, does not mean that we
hate people who do wrong things. So to talk of David Silvester ‘inciting hatred’
is grossly unfair. And when you think about it, the only hatred he actually
incited is hatred of himself!
The God who interferes
Second,
people don’t like the idea of God interfering with their lives, and
particularly that God may be angry with them, because that implies that they
are not in charge and have no influence in the rule of the universe. The
thought is almost, “What right does God have to tell me what to do? I didn’t
elect Him to rule over me! Who is God to interfere?”
Many
secular Westerners may call themselves agnostic, because they can’t bring
themselves to say for certain that there is no god. But they can only bring
themselves to admit there may be a
god if the god that may exist is
powerless or disinterested!
The
kind of god that they can tolerate is
one who isn’t too fussy over his friends. He forgives without any cost, just
because that’s what he does, and doesn’t mind if you ignore him your whole
life. He’s just there to help out if you call on him, and will meet up with you
after death to sort out something nice for you. That kind of god is one that
they don’t need to bother with at any point in their life unless they feel they
are in desperate need. He’s not going to intrude unless they ask him to. It’s
kind of a ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’ type of relationship. So it doesn’t
really matter whether he exists or not.
The
kind of god they definitely rule out
is one who says they owe Him respect, reverence, worship and obedience; who tells
them what’s right and wrong; is undemocratic; and threatens them with eternal
consequences for disobedience... whether they acknowledge His existence or not.
Another
way of looking at it is that people seem to be ok with religion if it’s a
matter of choice. Well, they would be wouldn’t they?! Some people choose one god, some people choose
another, and some people choose none. If people choose a god and then don’t do
as he/she/it says then they should be aware of the consequences. Saying that a
god punishes his/its/her followers
for not adhering to the rules of the religion makes sense, because the
followers have made a choice to be under those rules. So secular Western
thought has no problem allowing for the fact that some people have religious
beliefs, and adhere to a religious creed or code. It’s just their choice.
However,
in contrast, David Silvester’s God – the God that Christians believe in – is
One whose rules must be obeyed, and Who must be worshiped and revered, by every human being. If people choose
not to do so they will face consequences, both in this world and the next. His
rules apply to all of humanity and not just Christians.
The gospel issue
So
when David Silvester spoke of God punishing people who don’t believe in Him for
doing things that they think they have the right to do (i.e. changing the
definition of marriage), it touched the secular majority on their most
sensitive nerves. Whether he was right or wrong to say that the recent floods
are actually God’s judgment on a
nation that has given its approval to homosexuality, in essence what the
secular media and the public have really reacted to are the central truths of
Christianity.
Christianity
presents the one and only real God as
the Creator of everything, the Owner, the Ruler, the King and the Judge. He sets the rules, and sets the consequences for transgression, and enforces them. God is not passive. He cares what all human beings do, as His special
creations. He doesn’t need permission from us to be our Ruler and Judge. He has
that on His own authority as the one who made, and who owns, the universe.
The
point is really that God’s sovereignty over the universe, and His right to be
the only One authorised to define what is good or bad for humanity, are the
foundation truths of the Christian gospel. Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 8, “…we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,’ and that ‘there is
no God but one.’ For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on
earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all
things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are
all things and through whom we exist.”
We
should expect at least some unbelievers not to like it when we apply these
truths and call attention to them. They conflict with their own basic
principles – that morality is a matter of choice and that there is no higher
authority than themselves.
But
further, since we are called to ‘make disciples of all nations’ we should be
aware that people will not appreciate their need of the love and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ if they don’t know why they need it. And they need it
because they are sinners who have set aside the only real God in order to have
their own way, and because God will not let that go unpunished.
So
we should not be ashamed of talking of our great, holy God who sets the rules and
enforces them, because that sets the foundation for presenting the good news of
the way of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Was
David Silvester mistaken? Not in speaking of sin. Not in calling attention to
God’s displeasure at the rejection of His laws.
But
was he mistaken in linking specific natural events with God’s displeasure over
specific sins? To that we will turn next time, God willing.
