Forgive us our denominations!

This was the title of a little booklet published in the United Kingdom in the early 1970s. Where did all those denominations come from? We may find some clues in the Bible.

Genesis 11 tells the story of the building of Babel. We interpret it as an illustration of humanity's attempt to reach heaven under his own efforts, but there is another theme here also. They were afraid of being scattered and decided to give themselves a central rallying point and to give themselves a name.

And they said, go to, let us build us a city and the tower, whose top may reach to heaven: and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

There are some interesting motivations that come to the surface here.

In the earliest chapters of the Bible cities are sometimes symbols of fear and defiant independence. The first city was built by Cain in direct disobedience to God's command that he must forever wander. He built a safe place for himself, afraid that he might be hunted down and killed.

Later the inhabitants of Shinar determined to build a city and to put their name on it. They were afraid that they might be scattered. There is a verb for "putting a name on something"; it is the word "denominate" . They built a defensive wall around themselves and put a name on it. That might serve as a good definition for "denomination"; a defensive wall with a brand label on it.

Of course, for many the brand label has no sinister undertones. It is just one of history's accidents. But if we organise ourselves together for security and use our brand names and creeds to exclude others we are following a dangerous precedent.

Let him who has an ear to hear, hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

The Wife of Jesus?

Some folk will see the title and think 'haven't we been here before?' For some it may be new and troubling. It is really a very old story but the news-hounds who live on sensationalism have dragged it up to the top of the pile again. It has appeared in several newspapers and here on the BBC's website.

When the whole Dan Brown frenzy broke out I did an evening's teaching entitled 'from Judas to Da Vinci' which you can watch here on the Biblebase Vimeo pages.

If you want the shorter version. These documents which pop up from time to time are part of a movement known as 'Gnosticism'. (sometimes they are just modern fakes) This was a movement which tried to infiltrate and to subvert Christianity. Its first documented traces stem from the times of Irenaeus who was writing more than a hundred years after the New Testament. The Gnostics actually created their own gospels, e.g. the Gospel of Judas as a method of spreading their ideas. These ideas were never part of authentic Christianity. They do not come from the roots of the Christian message but are more like a grotesque parasitic attachment. Those who are always on the hunt for ways to discredit Christianity seize on these occasional discoveries and raise Dan Brown's cry that 'Christianity is a lie'.

Don't be disturbed. These weird lies tried to hi-jack authentic Christianity more than 1500 years ago. They failed… as will their modern imitators.

If you want more details do watch the video.

Nullius in verba (Take nobody's word for it)

The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, known as the Royal Society, is a learned society for science, and is possibly the oldest such society in existence. Founded in November 1660, it was granted a Royal Charter by King Charles II as the "Royal Society of London". (wikipedia) Its motto and modus operandi is 'take nobody's word for it'.

I have just watched a BBC programme in which Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (JS) talked to three atheistic scientists including the man he describes as 'the world's most famous atheist' Richard Dawkins (RD). In these kind of encounters Rabbi Sachs usually gives a good account of himself but I was disappointed with his latest outing. RD returned to his theme that 'one cannot disprove the existence of fairies and the existence of God is the same kind of category'. They chatted for a little while as RD insisted that belief must be based on 'evidence' and 'not tradition, religion or revelation.' He pressed JS as to whether or not he believed that God had actually had a conversation with Abraham. JS was strangely reticent to give a straightforward answer to this question but emphasised Judaism's insistence on questioning. The first duty of a Jewish father, claims JS, is to get his child to ask questions. The first duty!?! Well it depends on the question.

JS almost certainly has in mind the Passover instructions which state And it shall be, when your children say to you, “What do you mean by this service?’ Ex 12:26 NKJV. But that question is to instruct the child as to the meaning of a revelation, not a scientific experiment. We are to engage our minds in the things that God has revealed; And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. Mark 12:30 NKJV.

True science and true faith are not enemies. They have their different areas of authority. As JS puts it 'science takes things to pieces and asks "how do they work"' 'religion brings things together and asks "what does it mean"". It is in that realm of 'what does it mean?' that revelation has the last word. It is perhaps significant that the question asked on the day of Pentecost was not 'what is happening' but rather 'what does it mean?' Acts 2:12. The answer to that question demands 'revelation' which RD will not accept and which JS seems to have little to say about too.

If the Royal Institute is willing to change its motto to 'take no man's word for it' it will get my hearty 'amen' but if it says I man himself is the final arbiter of truth it usurps God's prerogatives. Faith does not come by reason but by hearing… the word of God. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:30–32 NKJV.

Olympic Ambitions?

Our fascination with the Olympics is no new thing. The Games were part of the culture of the 1st century and they serve as a rich source of metaphors for several New Testament writers, especially Paul. We sometimes need to dig a little to spot some of the references but they give us a wonderful glimpse into the mind-set of early Christians.

One word which is easily overlooked is the word sometimes translated as ‘strive’;

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 1 Cor 9:25 KJV.

To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily. Col 1:27–29 NKJV.

I’ve gone with the old KJV in the first of these references here to pick up the word ‘striving’. It is a vivid Olympic picture. In Paul’s day there was just a ‘first prize’ of a laurel wreath; no silver or bronze. That’s what he means when he calls the prize ‘a corruptible crown’. The laurel or bay tree victor’s crown was a very temporary award, unless you added it to the soup!

The word translated ‘strive’ is ‘agōnizomai’. It is the word from which we derive ‘agony’ but the focus of the original word is not on pain but on effort. It means to enter a context and to strive with strenuous zeal. It is the fierce concentration of the athlete who has a single goal in view. The rest of the world hardly exists for him. I recall seeing, on the TV, Linford Christie win the 100m in 1992. His focus was almost frightening. He didn’t even blink; I'm not sure he even breathed!

In this sense Paul was an Olympian. Not for him the Christian cruise. His mission statement, if he ever had one, was not ‘chill’ but ‘exert’ every scrap of ransomed energy to achieve the goal. And his goal was surprising. For him, the goal was ‘every man perfect in Christ Jesus’. Modern preachers have become very twitchy over the word ‘perfect’. They fear the unreality of ‘perfectionism’ but the opposite danger is just as real; ‘im-perfection-ism’. That’s the notion that we are nothing more than redeemed sinners and we had better get used to the idea. The belief that we are condemned to spend this life as a ‘divided man’ is growing in popularity again. Paul, however, believed that a man or woman could be 100% for God 100% of the time.

How do we stand with the gospel for today? Can God save us to the ‘uttermost’, 100% of the time or if not what percentage do we think will satisfy Him? Mind you, Paul was very clear how he expected to see this through; his trust was not in his own energy and resolution but in the ongoing miracle of the indwelling Christ. His banner was ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’ and his methodology was ‘striving according to His working which works in me mightily.’

If we have the victor (Greek: nike) living on the inside why should we fail in our Olympic efforts?

a rose by any other name?

Shakespeare's Juliet asks a question;

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

…I wonder.

I have been reading the account of Isaac and his wells. It begins with God setting the scene and giving it a long-view perspective.

Then the LORD appeared to him (Isaac) and said: “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” Gen 26:2–5 NKJV.

Isaac's prospects were good because Abraham was faithful. There is an unbreakable link here. Isaac was intended to build on the foundation that Abraham had laid. He cannot choose his own ways and traditions, he is part of a continuum.

God was preparing Isaac for the tests that would surely come. They came in the form of hostility from the people of the land that he was camped on. They had blocked up all the wells that Abraham and his servants had dug. No doubt it was a way of telling Isaac to 'move on'. So Isaac 'moved on' and came to the valley of Gerar and pitched his tent there. (Gen 26:17) The place had a history; Abraham had stayed there. But the people of the land had already blocked up Abraham's old wells so Isaac had the task of unblocking them, and of doing something else. He not only unblocked Abraham's old wells but he insisted in changing their names back to the names that Abraham had given.

And Isaac dug again the wells of water which they had dug in the days of Abraham his father, for the Philistines had stopped them up after the death of Abraham. He called them by the names which his father had called them. Gen 26:18 NKJV.

This is a glimpse into the culture of the day. If you owned something you had the right to change its name. God worked on this principle when he changed Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's to Sarah. Later he would finally get Jacob in his grip and change his name to Isaac. So Abraham had dug these wells and named them but those who wanted to erase the memory and testimony of Abraham had blocked the wells and renamed them. It is the ultimate re-writing of history; change the name. The idea is scattered through the Old Testament as the names of significant places receive new names.

But Isaac didn't give the reopened wells new names; he gave them old names. He was not innovating but building on old foundations.

We live in days when innovation and enterprise seem to be the watchwords of God's people and their mission. The search is on for more relevant methods of evangelism and 'church' planting and meetings. In some circles the search is on for different words and concepts that will better build the bridge between the local church and the community. The old words and concepts have too many disappointing and dusty memories; they are a 'turn off' to the 'current generation'. Some biblical phrases are too loaded with theological baggage; Baptism in Spirit, Sanctification, New Covenant, Regeneration.. they are all yesterday's words. Time to move on?

Of course to go back to the old names when the wells are still blocked would be folly. That would be a simple but deceptive paint-job. You don't change the nature of the well by giving it back an old name, but we should be cautious about finding new names for old truths in order to make them more acceptable. And there is a another danger that faces us. To use the old word but to change the definition is a well tried and tested method of perverting truth. No, a paint job will not do, nor the the pretence that all is well just because we are using the right words. We need to reopen the old wells AND give them back their old names. After all, to return to an ancient refrain of mine; "words have histories". Ah, some will say, this is just semantics and pedantry… but I wonder…

Who was right? Juliet or Isaac?

The Father is seeking...

I have just restarted my Biblebase Daily Bible Readings readings based on the Earley Christian Fellowship's Church Life School which we ran some years ago. I am reading in Genesis, the book of beginnings. In many ways Genesis is like a seed plot, all kinds of wonderful truths that flower later in the Bible can be found in the seed-plot of Genesis.

For example. How often have you heard it said that the first reference to worship in the Bible is in the story of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac? This is the verse in mind:

And Abraham said to his young men,“Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.” Gen 22:5 NKJV.

It is true that this is the first use of the English word worship but it is not the first time the Hebrew word for worship is used.

The Hebrew word for worship used here in Genesis 22:5 is [Hebrew Strong’s 7812] shachah, it is a word which means to prostrate oneself (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God): and is usually translated by the old King James Version as 'worship'. This is the word used by Abraham en route to Moriah. It is used earlier in Abraham's story in the record of 3 mysterious visitors to his tent door;

So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, Gen 18:2 NKJV.

That is a vivid picture. Old Abraham runs to meet them and then throws himself on his face at their feet. Later we find Lot greets these mysterious messengers of God in a similar fashion. (Gen 19:1 NKJV)

If we were trying to find a modern equivalent what words would be use? I have a suggestion, surrender. The position adopted by Abraham and later by Lot indicated total and absolute surrender to another.

When the Hebrew scholars translated the word shachah into the Greek language for a translation known as the Septuagint they usually used the ordinary Greek word for worship, [Greek Strongs 4352] proskuneO. It is a word with an interesting history. The letters kune link it with the Greek word for a dog. It seems that originally the word indicated the kind of total surrender that a dog gave to its master when it licked his hand. We are back to that word surrender again.

Apparently the Bible's idea of worship is constantly linked with the idea of total surrender. Perhaps, mischievously, I found myself putting the Bible word into some of our more common uses of the word worship. How does a Surrender Service sound? or a Surrender Band or perhaps even a Surrender Leader?

And it was not curiosity alone which made me try using the word in its older sense. I found my thoughts centring around two profound statements of Christ...

Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’  Matt 4:10 NKJV.

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. John 4:23–24 NKJV.

We magnify Your name, Lord,
We worship and adore You,
For who You are, for what You've done
Among Your people here.
We open up our lives to You,
Lay down our minds and wills,
We want You Lord to have Your way,
For we delight in You.

The Queen and her Diamond Jubilee

Etymology has to do with the origins of words, their historic roots and their development. All words have roots but the meaning of a word is not determined by its root but rather by its use. Language is a living thing and words change their meaning over time. It is sometimes the way of Bible students to refer to a Hebrew or Greek word and then redefine its meaning so that it reflects the original roots of the word. This is an area where a little learning can truly be a dangerous thing. Words don't just have roots, they have histories and histories change the way a word is used and consequently its meaning.

I was thinking about this over the last few days when in the UK we have been taken up with the affairs of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. That phrase shows how the history of a word can change its meaning. The word 'jubilee' has Hebrew roots. In fact, it has to do with the blowing of trumpets and was originally an event which took place every 50 years when debts were cancelled and slaves were set free. So a 60 year, diamond jubilee is an idea that cannot be re-attached to its Hebrew roots. The phrase has other problems, the Anglo-Saxon word 'cwen' which is the root of our word 'queen' actually means the 'wife of a king'. This is beginning to get complicated because the current United Kingdom 'queen' is not the 'wife of a king'. We cannot interpret the phrase 'Queen's Diamond Jubilee' just by referring to the roots of the words, we have to take into account the passing of centuries, remembering that 'words have histories'.

It works in the opposite direction too. When we read the Bible we need to guard against the danger of importing the modern usage of a word back into a Bible passage. Let me illustrate briefly. The word 'guilt' has now come to mean 'shame'. So when we read of 'guilt' in the scriptures we need to remind ourselves that it is not referring to a feeling but to the verdict of a judge. Biblically, to be guilty is to have come under the judge's condemnation, our feelings have no relevance in the matter.

So how can we guard against the twin dangers of going too far back to a word's root or going too far forward to the modern usage of a word? Simply by saturating ourselves in the context of the word as we find it in the scriptures. Remembering that the meaning of a word is determined by its usage, not its original or contemporary meaning but its historical usage. Of course all this takes time and patience, high cost values in an age of quick-fixes and sound-bites. But there is no other alternative, in studying the Bible we have to invest to profit.

Multi-tasking: virtue or vice?

I watched an hour long documentary last night entitled 'Digital Nation'. It was originally created back in February of 2010. If you would like to watch the same you can find it here, Digital Nation It begins by observing some tests conducted at MIT and Stanford so it isn't written by Luddites! The tests showed that among those who prided themselves most on their multi-tasking internet lives were not multi-tasking nearly as well as they thought and that such multi-tasking evidenced significantly slower rates of function, memory disorganisation and were worse at analytical reasoning. This may all have deep significance socially but I am more interested in its possible effects on our devotional lives.

Perhaps it is significant that one of the Biblical opposites for 'evil' is 'single'. "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Luke 11:34 KJV." and the Psalmist makes his own intention very plain; "Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart. Psa 119:34 KJV"

There are times then when our Salami-slicing abilities really work against the concentration that God is desiring. God can never be satisfied with the kind of Christianity which regards the spiritual life as an interesting add-on to all the other things we are doing. There are times when everything else has to stop and we give ourselves to God alone. "Be still, and know that I am God: Psa 46:10 KJV"

The internet and modern technology are great tools for acquiring data, even Biblical data, but there is more to relationship than data. I discovered many years ago that what I learn quickly I tend to forget quickly but the disposition which marinates in the word and presence of God will add flavours to the character that will never be available to those who are 'hooked on tronics' and its instant solutions.

Riots or Revelation: the only real options

The version best known by Christians of an older generation is...

Where there is no vision, the people perish: Prov 29:18 KJV

It has been a favourite with many a preacher. The general interpretation was that unless we have a God-given goal, usually held by the leader, the work of God will fade and vanish. The New King James Version corrects this misunderstanding...

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law. Prov 29:18 NKJV

This is referring to a quite different Biblical concept. When there is no revelation of God's will people will live lives which are without restraint.

In the UK we have been experiencing a time of civil disorder and mob activity. We have generations now who have never been taught that God has placed limits on human freedom and that he will hold us accountable when we cross those lines. We have generations who are experts on their 'rights' and who could hardly name a 'responsibility'. Sooner or later the behaviour that we have seen on our streets is inevitable to a society which has 'no revelation'; they will simply, as the wise man told us 3000 years ago, throw off restraint.

Why not? Atheistic evolution has no reason for the requirement for a man or woman to 'love their neighbour as they love themselves'. Dawkins and others struggle to create the notion that 'collectively' we have evolved into communities which realise that survival is a better prospect when we 'stick together' but it is an empty logic.

If there is no God, and the fool lives his life on that presumption, why not cast off all restraint?

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good. Psa 14:1 NKJV

This famous verse is actually telling us the mind-set of certain people. God is not in their thoughts; 'in their thoughts/heart' they are working on the assumption that 'there is no God'. In the UK our TV screens have been taken up with experts from one field or another who 'explain' why thousands of youngsters have taken to the streets in looting and destruction. The real answer is much more simple than those we constantly hear. The cause of the riots? practical atheism. The 'fool' has the mind-set that there is no God; There will be no 'repercussions'. The only fault is in getting caught. The 'atheist' will produce 'abominable works' because there is no logical, ultimate, restraint upon his behaviour. His mind-set is a personal pragmatism; if it suits 'me' that's a good enough reason.

Are riots and looting wrong? Why are they wrong? If we are the simple product of an atheistic evolution how can anything be wrong? Right and wrong are redundant categories; all that really matters is 'what do I get out of it?' If there is no God and no future judgment, why is rioting 'wrong'? Unless there is a revelation of a God who requires his creatures to behave in certain ways that he has ordered, why not 'cast off restraint'.

So how should those who believe in a God who has revealed 'right and wrong' respond in the face of riots? We must be active agents of a 'revelation' of the will of God and we must point men and women to one who took on his own shoulders the 'lawless-nesses' of a whole world and made a way back to God. Ultimately relationships between one person and another can never be on a right foundation until those persons are themselves rightly related to God; the horizontal relationship can never be truly 'right' until the vertical relationship is mended.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:18–21 NKJV

Some thoughts about Bible dogs. Pt 2 Part of the family

I made a point of explaining that 'dogs' never became part of the 'family'. There is an exception to this.

There is a Bible character who begins outside the family but becomes an integral part of the family. It seems that he was a Kennizite and that implies that he was not one of the descendants of Israel. He rose to prominence in the family of Judah and was commissioned to reconnoitre the land of Israel before the Conquest.

He seems to have been a foreigner who was integrated into the family of Judah and left a lasting legacy of courage and naked faith. Perhaps it was because his origins were remembered that he was always known by the name that showed he was not originally part of the family. They called him by the name that indicated a foreigner from outside the family; in English 'dog' or 'whelp', in Hebrew... Caleb. Joshua 14:6.

Here was a man with little spiritual legacy and, so far as we can tell, no right to be part of the Bible's story but we know him as a man of extraordinary faithfulness to the revealed will of God. It is an encouraging reminder that it is not our past which determines our destiny and usefulness in the kingdom of God, but our current obedience.

Some Thoughts on Bible Versions: Part 3

Teach Thyselfe Olde Englishe?

Why should anyone bother with such an archaic concept? Well, some may just be curious but there are occasions when the switch from ‘thou’ to ‘you’ is quite significant.

This is a little article I created a few years back. If you read it through you will be able to show off to your friends by explaining why the sign which declares...

Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe

is inaccurate. But if you read further you may find Olde Englishe can hold the key to some real gems of revelation.

Teach Thyselfe Olde Englishe

And, following on from the close and personal use of God's proper name, 'Thee' and 'thou' are not so grand as you might think and speak of an intimacy that we have lost in the modern usage of the word 'you'.

Precious Memories

This is a video of Eric Hutchings. I was almost certainly in the congregation in the Bingley Hall when this message was given. My wife, Margaret, came to Christ under this ministry and I received much from this man and his team. Take a look at evangelism in the 1960s!

For Many other free videos visit the website: www.sermonindex.net

Fascinating!

Poetic Imagination v Revelation?

I received a very special and unexpected Christmas present, a copy of "the History of the World in a 100 Objects". It is the text that has accompanied a BBC series in which 100 items from the British Museum have been selected to tell the story of human history. It is beautifully produced with great art plates of some amazing artefacts. I am one of those odd people who read the Prefaces and Introductions to books and this book has both; they explain the philosophy behind the book in some detail.

Some years ago I while working in the City of London I attended a lunch-time lecture at the British Museum on the Philosophy of History. There is an old adage that there is 'no such thing as uninterpreted history'. That means that all history is edited and interpreted, almost always by the victors who put their own spin on events. This lecture declared that we can pass no judgments of any kind on history without reinterpreting it and advocated a kind of history without conscience in which we pass no moral comment but simple 'give the facts'. It is impossible of course for any human being to be really objective in 'giving the facts'. Only the man or woman who knows they are subjective and takes that into account has any chance of 'giving the facts'. Those who have dabbled in the mystery may recognise the 'post modern' approach of my lunch time lecturer.

The preface and introduction of my Christmas present give a different slant. They declare, particularly with pre-text artefacts, that it is essential to use 'poetic imagination' in the interpreting of history. I read of a man chipping away at a flint hand axe whose mental processes of flint-knapping stimulated those parts of the brain that would create language. It created, I read, the kind of language which had the vocabulary of a seven year old child. (notice, not a 6 or 8 year old child) It then takes this 'fact' into the next chapter and uses it as the foundation for the next layer in human evolution in which carved animals and human figures show the evolution of religion. For 'poetic imagination' read 'sheer speculation'.

Are we then at the mercy of the imagination of our poets for our understanding of the world in which we live or is there an alternative? Short of the discovery of time travel the only alternatives can be imagination or revelation. There are aspects of life of which we can discover absolutely nothing by our own investigations, but we need not be ignorant of all these. God has given us, not a poetic speculation, but a unique and reliable revelation in the Scriptures. We know where 'religion' came from; it came because men had rejected 'revelation'.

although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Rom 1:21–25 NKJV

Idolatry then, whether in physical images or in contemporary philosophies, is always the consequence of turning our back on revelation.

more likely than not

I was listening to a very subdued scientist on the radio today. He was declaring that scientists can never say anything is absolutely true. Science he said is constantly challenging itself and is 'self-correcting'. His topic was the hooha that has continued since the emails for the University of East Anglia were made public.

Now I am not a spokesman for either the pro-global warming or the anti-global warming camps. There is a delightful American phrase which I intend to use more and more... "I don't believe I have a dog in that fight". However this sudden rush of humility sits very strangely when we compare it to some of the assertions of Dr Richard Dawkins. He asserts that evolution is proven and that there is no doubt. We now understand the universe, he declares. Perhaps we can hope that the new mood of science spokespersons is contagious, but I won't hold my breath.

This afternoon's radio science spokesperson concluded that the most that science could really say was 'more likely than not'. How many degrees short of certainty this is were not explained. If Dr Dawkins adopts this stance we shall begin to hear that Neo Darwinian Evolution 'cannot be said to be absolutely true' but is 'more likely than not'. I won't be holding my breath to hear Dr Dawkins say that either.

human but not a person?

A recent news Times article reported that "abortion is the killing of a human being but this is less important than a woman's right to control her own life". Abortion is killing but women’s rights rule.

Over three millennia ago God enshrined universal law in a series of instructions given to the people we call Israel. The principles of the law were universal but the Exodus 20 application of it was unique to a group of people who entered into a solemn and binding covenant to keep it. We call it the Ten Commandments, although the full law contained hundreds. The Ten Commandments all deal with a very modern topic 'respect'. The first few commandments are a commentary on the fact the God has rights and that they must be respected. The remainder are based on the principle that human beings have rights and they must also be respected. (Noticeable by their omission are any commandments that deal with 'my rights to my rights'.) These simple commandments instruct me as to how I must respect God's rights and how I must respect the rights of other human beings.

There is an underlying revelation truth which is as the base of all the commandments directed at respecting the rights of others. It is staggering in its simplicity and in its implications. [color=0033FF] “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. Gen 9:6 NKJV[/color] Human rights are derived from a very simple truth; human beings are in the image of God and that sets them apart from every other life form.

There are many noble souls who have died for the rights of other people but the only sure foundation of a right attitude to others is the truth that human beings are in the image of God. That means old human beings who no longer have an economic function. It means tiny human beings whose lives hangs by a thread. It means tiny human beings whose presence is an inconvenience to other human beings. It means damaged human beings whose bodies or brains do not function 'normally'.

As mere creatures at the top of some evolutionary pyramid human beings have no more rights than a wood louse. Their only right is their might; their traditional ability to impose their will on other life forms. But if mankind, and even the tiniest scrap of it, is truly in the 'image of God' it must transform forever my attitude to their 'rights'. For those rights are not created by arbitrary judgements of other human beings but are a God given heritage and a God given trust.

some thoughts on the UK election: part 5

We are getting quite a bit of coverage on the issue of a 'hung parliament' and the question of 'tactical voting'. So I thought I would share some thoughts along those lines.

democracy |diˈmäkrəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives :

As believers we are to 'obey the king' that is to say we are to take our place as citizens in the society where God has placed us. The simple definition of democracy I have used here could easily be expanded into whole books on the topic but the essence is that those eligible to vote usually vote for a representative. In the UK we have a representative democracy. We elect our representative and authorise him/her to make decisions on our behalf. So how would a believer view the prospect of voting for a member of parliament he does not really want but in order to 'spoil' the chances of one party over another?

Yesterday I heard three separate politicians make their comments. One said 'vote with your head'; he meant go for the tactical vote which spoils another party's chance of government. Another said 'vote with your heart'; he meant choses your personal representative. Another said 'vote with your conscience'; which also means vote for your personal representative. This opens up a whole can of worms. Technically in the UK we don't elect a political party, we elect members of parliament. The party which ends up with most members of parliament is invited, by the Queen, to form a government. This must all seem unbelievably quaint to my republican readers!.

During the time of people like Wilberforce 'party politics' was a much more fluid thing and even into living memory a great parliamentaran like Winston Churchill changed parties twice, from Conservative to Liberal and later back from Liberal to Conservative. Things have become much more frozen now and it is interesting to note that all the major contenders for the premiership would probably regard themselves as Gladstonians.. who was a Liberal! In modern times the party machine has controlled our democracy and you will frequently hear the phrase 'voting for a party' although in its purest form our system doesn't vote for a party but for a local member of parliament.

So how should a believer vote? Surely 'with his conscience'. To do otherwise is to manipulate the political machinery and calls the essence of democracy into question. In a couple of days we in the UK will be invited to take our citizen duty in a general election. Our duty is not to enter into the power politics of 'moral majorities' and 'tactical voting' but simply to do as we are asked... who do you choose to be your personal representative in the next parliament?

some thoughts on the UK election: part 4

This is a reposting of a blog I did about a year ago but this distinction between crime and sin is an important one as we consider the choice of a government. Governments are not required to be holy but they are required to be righteous. We shall need to see the distinction between morals and crime if we are going to make a sober choice of parliamentary candidates.

It was a song from the 1940's and included the lines...

if it's something you enjoy you can be certain that
it's illegal, it's immoral or it makes you fat.

The singer's lament is that whatever they really wanted to do always seemed to fall into one of these three categories. It was perceptive in that it recognised that 'legal' and 'moral' are distinct categories but less perceptive in that it presumed that 'fun' would inevitably be in either one of these categories or another; it reality these categories often overlap.

It is because of the overlap that there is such anger among British folks as I write. Some Members of Parliament have been 'playing the system' or maybe even 'milking' it. It seems that very few will actually have done anything illegal but there is a gathering sense that what they have done is certainly immoral. Few will have broken the law in their far reaching expenses claims but many have breached a hidden law of the conscience that we call morality. Illegal actions should be punished by the state but what about immoral actions?

Polygraph machines, or lie-detectors as they are sometimes called work on a principle that when someone tells a lie the body sets off a kind of moral smoke-alarm. Stresses are created in the inner man that are seen in changes in blood pressure or heart rates. It seems that something in our deepest psyche knows that something is wrong and "sets off the smoke-alarm". Something in the behaviour of our British MPs has set off the smoke-alarm in the public at large. There may be no 'law' that has been broken but we are a 'law unto ourselves', 'the work of law is written in our hearts'. Rom 2:14,15. It has serious implications and not just for the Members of Parliament.

In this same passage in Romans Paul says that 'whoever judges another passes sentence on himself'. Rom 2:1 Some profess to have no conscience and are free from all law but it is a self-deception. If I know that something is wrong when someone steals from me, I also know that something is wrong if I steal from someone else. I cannot assess another's behaviour without acknowledging that in my own behaviour there are things which deserve judgment and justice.

The atheist may say he doesn't believe in God but the real problem is that God doesn't believe in atheists. He knows that he has not left himself without a witness and in some secret part of the consciousness men and women know they are accountable for the way they live. They may make their bold professions of 'freedom from law' but that annoying smoke-alarm keeps going off!

some thoughts on the UK election: part 3

Let's have a look at some Biblical precedents.

There are at least three OT characters who seem to have played quite a part in the government of non-Israelite nations. I am thinking of Joseph, Daniel (and his three friends) and Mordecai. It is helpful to see the way that these men functioned; they were all men who were 'in the wrong place'. By that I simply mean they were not where they would have chosen to be or where they might have expected to be; they were all 'out of place'.

They were all senior advisors to pagan monarchs and their service of these monarchs is really instructive. None of them actually 'sought office'. None of them tried to convert their kings nor did they attempt to 'Christianize' (or Israelitize) the governments that they served. Their personal integrity and faith brought them at times into conflict with their kings and their faith had a considerable impact upon their masters, but they had no 'mission'; they simply served their masters. They lived in their worlds as witnesses not legislators.

What I am trying to say is that they did not impose their faith or its implications on the nations in which they served. They served God faithfully and they served their kings faithfully. They were exemplary examples of the phrase 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's'... and they never mixed these two things up. They did not hide their faith but only when their loyalty to God and their loyalty to men came into conflict do their different worlds collide.

The place of the Christian in society will always be a delicate balance. Should Christians avoid public office or responsibility? Not on the basis of these Biblical examples. Should Christians take on public office in order to shape the nation in which they serve? Not on the basis of these Biblical examples. So just what is our role in our complex modern world, are we to be the world's legislators or its conscience?

some thoughts on the election: part 2

Let me draw some things to your attention that you may have not noticed or perhaps forgotten.

There are two contrasting covenants referred to in the Bible. The Sinai or Old Covenant is very conscious of territory and nation and state. In fact that covenant served as a kind of tenancy agreement for the ancient people of Israel. Keep the tenancy and you keep the land; break the tenancy agreement and you will be evicted. That covenant created what is known as a theocracy; the state and the religion of the people were inseparable. It was God's people and God's land. The religion of the what we call the Old Testament is, in the main, intensely territorial. Anyone who touched God's people or his land came under summary judgement. There was no distinction between crime and sin for all the laws were God's laws. The nation and the state and 'the church' were one.

And then there is another Covenant, usually called the New Covenant and its key document is the New Testament. This Covenant has, apparently, no interest at all in territory. A man or woman might be accused of being a Christian and found guilty but there was a distinction between crime and sin. It was no sin to become a Christian but for some it was a crime. In the New Testament there are no nation-states because its background is the Roman empire of which all were subjects in one way or another. There are ethnic groups but no nations in the modern sense of the word.

The way the New Testament looks at the state and our involvement in it is very different from the Old Testament perspective. In the Old Testament men and women were required, as part of their covenant to be an integral part of the whole social and political life of the nation. In the New Testament the underlying metaphor is of the stranger and the pilgrim. "This world is not my home, I'm just a passing through"; no Israelite could have sung that song but it has been the marching song of the Christian for two millennia.

Where shall we get our patterns and principles?

some thoughts on the election: part 1

The Christian has dual citizenship: of heaven (Philippians 3:20); and of an earthly nation (usually that in which he was born).

This is a quotation from a document called Election Briefing 2010. For folks in the UK just now it is a 'must read' item but is the quote accurate or helpful? The statement is often used to justify a believer's commitment to politics, patriotism, war and a whole bunch of other things. What basis do we have for saying that a 'Christian has dual citizenship'? How would that work out? Dual citizenship is a 'two-edged sword', it can mean that you end up with the duties of both nations and the protection of neither.

Is there another view? There is but it is a little old fashioned now. Some of the early Christian Brethren based their non-involvement in the the political process with another phrase 'believers are not called to tame the wild beasts of Daniel 7 but to call out a people for Christ'. This one will need a bit of an explanation! Daniel 7 predicts a succession of world empires from the days of Daniel's own time to the end times. Some of those early Christian Brethren believed that as this succession of empires had already been prophesied the Christian should not waste their times trying to 'change the course of history'.

How do you react to these two views? Give them some thought and we'll try to think through the implications of living as Christians on earth.