David Silvester’s Mistake – Was He Right or Wrong?

In my last post I was thinking about the reaction David Silvester received recently to his open letter accusing UK Prime Minister David Cameron of bringing God’s judgment upon the nation. In the letter he said that, “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 particular breach he was talking about was the redefinition of marriage, passed into law by the British parliament months earlier, enabling same-sex marriages to take place. The natural disasters he linked to it were the heavy rains, storms and flooding that beset southern England early in 2014, and which continued to worsen even after his letter.

I observed last time that whether or not David Silvester is right to link the floods directly with the displeasure of God because of the same-sex marriage legislation, the reaction of the secular media and the public was really a reaction to truth that is central to the Christian message. He called homosexuality sinful and he portrayed God as involved in (and judging) the affairs of mankind. The reaction is because they don’t like the assertion that an unelected being is in charge, setting rules they don’t like, and enforcing them, whether they voted for Him or not. I concluded that since the gospel of love, forgiveness and hope cannot be understood without knowing what we need to be forgiven from and saved from, David Silvester was absolutely right to speak of an active sovereign God and point to the need for repentance from sin.

What I want to examine now is whether Mr Silvester is right to claim that the Bible clearly shows God as actively punishing wayward former-Christian nations with natural disasters; and whether he is right to link the winter 2013/14 floods with the same-sex marriage bill.

Sovereignty, sin and punishment

Mr Silvester claims that, “the scriptures make it abundantly clear”, and so we will turn to the Bible and check it out. Whole books are written on this subject, but let’s try to do it quickly…

1.  The Bible clearly conveys God as being in absolute control over His universe, and therefore nothing happens (including floods) outside of His purpose.  “For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods. Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.” (Psalm 135:5-7) (See also Daniel 4:34-35; Psalm 22:28; 113:4.)

2.  The Bible clearly conveys God as holding every human being, family, community and nation responsible for living according to His rules, and judging them with His wrath for disobedience. (Psalm 9:8; 98:9; 96:13; 58:11; 149:7; 47:8; 94:10. See also Jeremiah 46.)

3.   God’s ultimate judgment will be in the future when this present creation is swept away and His people will inherit the new perfected creation, and the rest will be consigned to eternal torment being excluded from any of God’s blessing. (Revelation 20:11-15; 21:1-7; Matthew 25:46)

4.   However, the Bible shows us that God does act now in this life, punishing nations for systemic and ingrained wickedness, as well as blessing nations for genuine obedience. (Deuteronomy 9:4; Isaiah 13)

5.   In the Bible, God’s punishment on nations comes in the form of famine, wars, disease, economic hardship, division and confusion, being enslaved to other nations via debt, and the like (e.g. Deuteronomy 28). The 10 plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7-13) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19) are among a very small number of occasions where God visits particular focussed judgment in a miraculous way. The Great Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8) was the only time recorded in the Bible when God used storms and flooding to bring about His judgment.

6.     Homosexuality is ‘an abomination’ according to God (Leviticus 18:22) and was one of the reasons that He punished the Canaanites: “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled... and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” (vv24-25).

So it’s clear that the Bible does portray God as all-powerful, able and willing to punish the disobedience and wickedness of nations directly, both now and in the final judgment. And it’s also clear in the Bible that homosexual sex is something that God sees as sinful and worthy of punishment, and that He uses both natural and human disasters as means of delivering judgment upon nations.

It’s also probably true that God does hold His own people under stricter discipline, and that the UK monarch’s coronation pledge in church, before God and all UK citizens, to rule according to ‘the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel’, makes the UK a Christian nation.

So I can see why David Silvester draws his conclusion that the UK is under God’s judgment, that same-sex marriage is part of the reason for that judgment, and that natural disasters (i.e. floods) are a manifestation of His judgment.

But there is, however, some evidence to the contrary.

Not an exact link

Jesus explicitly rebutted the claim that if bad things happen to people they must be worse sinners than those who don’t suffer. He was asked (Luke 13:1-5) ‘about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.  And he answered them,  “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?    No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.    Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem?    No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”’ So there were no specific sins to which those disasters could have been linked.

We might also consider that the famine in the time of Joseph (Genesis 41 and following) was not explained in the Bible as a punishment of the Canaanites, any more than the wealth that the Egyptians gained through it was due to their righteousness. And yet it was God who warns Pharaoh of it in advance, and God who brought it about.

We should also consider that the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman empires were for long periods very rich and successful forces in the world, and yet that was not because of their righteousness, for they were some of the most corrupt and brutal regimes in world history.

Even in our living memory we could point to the fact that we suffered the horrors of two world wars during a period when church attendance was high and Christian morality was still very much adhered to by the majority of the British and American population. However bad the 2013/14 Southern England floods were, they caused nowhere near the same level of destruction or loss of life as the World Wars, and yet Christians would argue that we have generally morally declined rapidly since then.

So however much a disaster looks to be an extraordinary work of God, we are not entitled to draw the conclusion that it is aimed as a punishment on a specific misdoing.

Let me clarify further by saying that I do believe that the UK and other Western nations are under the judgment of God. Social fragmentation, economic crisis, STDs, increasing health and psychological problems, etc are all evidence of God’s wrath. And the weakness of the church is also a sign of God’s wrath. And I could even agree that the floods were part of God’s punishment, because they are financially draining on the country’s financial services sector (insurance companies).

And I also believe that the UK and Western nations have been gradually eroding Christian morality as the basis for national government and law – whether that be the abolition of the death penalty, the legalization of abortion, the acceptance of sex (hetero- and homo- sexual) outside of heterosexual marriage as normal, Sunday trading, talk of legalizing euthanasia, embryo research, not curbing the greed of rich bankers, or changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

What I can’t find support in the Bible for is the assertion that a particular spell of bad weather, or a particular catastrophe, can be linked to a particular rejection of God’s laws, unless God explicitly says it is.

A sad reaction to a slightly misguided prophet

So I do think that David Silvester is wrong to confidently assert that the winter floods were God’s judgment on the UK because of the same-sex marriage decision. There is no Biblical justification for saying that.

However….

I also think that if He were here in person, Jesus may have said something similar to his statement in Luke 13, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” In other words, God is in control, He is causing the rain, wind, storms and floods. And we are sinners, rejecting His ways. And He does threaten awful punishment for those who reject His Son and fail to repent of their sinful ways – definitely in eternity, but sometimes in this life too.

Sometimes even if natural disasters are not directed at any particular sin, the events demonstrate to us tangibly, visibly, audibly, physically,

1.     How powerful and awesome God is, because He has power over all those events; and

2.     That we have no strength to resist His power.

Natural disasters cause us to fear because we cannot resist or control these things, and that fear is really the fear of God, because He is behind it all.

I find it very sad that the reaction to hearing about God’s judgment is not fear. If you found yourself in gangland territory, and heard that you had annoyed the local mafia (even if you thought you’d done nothing), you would fear. Why is there no fear when there is a suggestion that we are on the wrong side of the Almighty Creator and Owner of the entire Universe, and that He is angry? Why aren’t we quaking, asking what we have to do avoid His wrath? Why don’t people at least ask whether this is true?

The reason is because our sin has blinded us. Our desire to determine our own destinies, our desire to live the way we want to live with no one telling us what’s right and wrong, has eclipsed our natural human sense that we are created and are responsible to our Creator. It’s as if we’ve turned the volume up on the TV deliberately so loud to blot out the voice of conscience, just because we don’t want to change…

It just shows how far we have strayed when we can even block out the voice of these storms. Because even if the floods are not a particular judgment on a particular evil, they still shout at us, “God is awesome! Don’t be on the wrong side of Him!” Events like this should force us to face up to the fact that Christianity is not a private religion – God in my little heart. If God is God at all, He is awesome, owns everything that exists, and can do anything with anything that exists. He can’t be limited to church buildings, and particular places or times. He is the One to whom every created being owes their existence, and every human being owes their worship.

The sad thing about the mainstream reaction to David Silvester’s letter to the Henley Standard is that the overwhelming response is ridicule and horror and not fear and repentance.

The prophets of the Old Testament faced the same kind of reaction among the Jews, who were supposed to be God’s special people. The prophets predicted God’s judgment upon their waywardness and unfaithfulness, and they were often locked up, beaten, ridiculed and chased into hiding (take Elijah as an example).

On the other hand when the prophet Jonah (the one of the Big Fish) went to the non-Jewish Ninevites and called them to repent in order to avoid God’s judgment on them, they did in fact repent. They wept and mourned, and God saw that and turned away from the punishment He had planned.

And the big point of Jonah’s story was that whilst the Jews were persecuting prophets, thinking that God would never do anything bad to them, the people they considered to be beyond mercy were receiving mercy because of their heartfelt repentance.

Conclusion

David Silvester may have been theologically incorrect to assert a firm link between the disastrous Southern England flooding of 2013/14 and God’s anger at same-sex marriage. However, he was not wrong to point out the wrongness of same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general. He was not wrong to call for repentance. And He was not wrong to point to God as The All-Powerful Creator and Judge. For the gospel to be understood, these kinds of things need to be said.

As Christians we should be praying that God will turn hearts from ridicule to repentance, because He can do that as well. And in the meantime, we should stand with David Silvester and continue to proclaim the good news of salvation from God’s wrath, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

David Silvester's Mistake - What Was the Fuss All About?

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.

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

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)

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.