Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts

Pentecost and the royal wedding sermon

Today is Pentecost. It's the day Christians remember among other things, that by his Spirit God works in believers what they cannot work in themselves. Coming to faith in Christ they are recreated to do good works (Eph 2v10) and made a new humanity (Eph 2v15) who can now live in true love (Eph 3v16-19) as a foreteaste of the perfect love and righteousness that Christ will bring about at his return, when he makes all things new (2 Pet 3v11-13). And so to yesterday's royal wedding sermon.

Facebook has been alive with enthusiasm. And I get that. I felt moved too. At one level I suspect this was because of the passionate talk about Jesus to offset the sleep inducing tones of the British clergy (someone please tell them how to smile and be personable). At another, I suspect it was because our expectation of these events is so low, and this guy spoke about the redemptive love of Christ! Finally, I think this enthusiasm reflects the fact that as Christians we heard what was said through Christian ears. So when we heard of the power of love, we thought of the love Christ works in those who trust him - the love of the Spirit given to all who've sought his forgiveness. But (and I really hate feeling the Eeyore) I'm certain the millions who listened in didn't hear it that way at all.

I've read the sermon online to be sure of what was said, and what it seems to proclaim is the gospel of try harder. It's hope, it's good news was that we, everyone, can bring about a new creation if only we will love one-another more powerfully. Just consider this paragraph: "Cause when love is the way, we actually treat each other, well, like we are actually family. When love is the way we know that God is the source of us all. And we are brother and sisters, children of God. Brothers and sisters, that's a new heaven, a new earth, a new world, a new human family." Think now on how the sermon ends: "Dr King was right: we must discover love – the redemptive power of love. And when we do that, we will make of this old world, a new world."

What's heard then is quite simple: "Let's try harder." What's heard is that, whoever we are, whatever we believe, we are able to do for ourselves what in truth only Christ can do.

Now it's possible Curry may not have intended that. But he is the head of a liberal denomination and this is the gospel of liberal Christianity - the gospel of our secular age. Yet this is not the true gospel. The true gospel is about Christ's remedy for the fact that we can't change the world by trying harder. The true gospel addresses the fact that no matter how hard we think we are trying, strife and poverty and racism continue because we don't (and can't) love as we should love. The gospel is therefore honest about sin. And by being honest, by speaking about the unpalatable stuff, the gospel gives true hope - real, practical hope to Harry and Megan, and to all couples who find in marriage that they can't love as they have promised to love. It proclaims that Christ alone can and will change the world, that he is returning to make it new, and wonderfully, generously, graciously calls us to share in that. The gospel is about God the Son in love pacifying his Father's right outrage at how unloving we are, and then transforming those who come to him so they can start to love with his love as children of God. That's the gospel.

Michael Curry's sermon was great rhetoric. And because those of our age are drawn more by the medium than the message, God may well use it to draw people towards Christ. But to my mind his message was at best unclear on the gospel, and at worst intentionally so.

Abortion contravenes the very values our society cherishes most

This Friday marks fifty years since the abortion act. During that time 8.7 million abortions have taken place within the UK – around 200,000 a year. To get some perspective, if all those babies had lived, that’s the equivalent to the combined population of Scotland and Wales.

Of course whether or not a woman can have an abortion is deeply significant for her. It’s her future that will be impacted if a baby is born. The choice to abort is therefore seen as critical to gender equality – to the woman maintaining her rights over her own body and her freedom to fulfil her potential. Moreover, if she is unable to have an abortion legally, she may seek out an illegal and potential dangerous one.

But when one considers it, this defence of abortion is filled with tragic irony.

Abortion undermines equality.
It is profoundly discriminatory. Many still baulk at the sex-selective abortion, but you cannot consistently deny the woman’s right to abort according to the gender of the child if you have just affirmed her rights over her body and her freedom to fulfil her potential as she wishes. Yet sex-selective abortion usually is one that discriminates against girls and so against women.

However, abortion doesn’t only discriminate according to gender. Abortion discriminates against those with disability, downs syndrome and even a cleft palate, as babies with these conditions are aborted and so unable to contribute to society.

Abortion breaches rights.
A free society is one that always has to balance what it calls "rights," with some curtailed so that others are upheld. Yet abortion is deeply individualistic, disregarding the communal aspects of having children. The rights of wider society to benefit from the child even if he or she suffers from a disability is rarely considered. But many have experienced how enriching it can be to learn how to accept and care for those who struggle because of disability. And what of the rights of wider family to the child that has been conceived?

Of course the major right to be considered is the right of the baby itself - it’s right to life and to protection from harm. It is not simply a part of the women’s body. Whether one is ready to accept the foetus as a person or not, it is certainly an individual entity being readied for independent life and personhood. From conception it has its full 46 chromosomes and entire genetic makeup. Its sex is therefore determined, as is its future growth to some extent. The mother may not want a baby, and the pregnancy may even have arisen from abuse, but the fact is that from the beginning this developing individual is at his or her most vulnerable, entirely dependent on the mother for protection. There is nothing “pro-women” in a woman’s choice to abort such dependents. Pregnancy brings responsibility. And where a mother chooses to continue the pregnancy despite the potential harm or difficulty it might bring her, she is doing something extremely noble. To love is to give up one’s rights for the good of others, especially those in need.

Abortion does harm.
One in three women will have an abortion during their lifetime. Yet many who have, speak of profound regret, guilt and despair at what they’ve done. We might also consider the harm the acceptance of abortion does to our cultural mindset – to how we view children or life, and to how it encourages sexual promiscuity with all the psychological and emotional fallout that can accompany it. But the greatest harm is surely done to the babies themselves. By eight weeks they can respond to touch, implying sensitivity and possibly pain. At twenty weeks they can experience pain more intensely than adults as their pain system is established but its modifying component isn’t. It is in the light of this that we must consider how exactly abortions are carried out.

Medication is used for those early in pregnancy. Pills are taken to end the life of the baby and cause the uterus to expel it. However, 90% of abortions of up to twelve weeks into the pregnancy are not conducted in this way. Rather, they involve a suction tube that may be used to first kill and dismember the baby, before sucking its various parts out for disposal. And what of the 42,000 babies aborted each year after twelve weeks? They can’t come out as easily, and so have to be crushed to death and broken apart with medical tools in order to be extracted. If still later in the pregnancy, contractions have to be induced to expel the baby which will either die in the process or be given a drug to ensure it does. Sometimes it is extracted by surgery.

Pro-abortion websites sanitise all this. They speak of the “pregnancy” being removed not the “baby,” and with little detail about what that involves. But the facts speak for themselves. Abortion wreaks great harm at every level.

A better way.
Debates will no doubt continue as to the appropriateness of abortion when the mother’s life is in danger or the baby could end up severely handicapped. These are currently the only legal grounds for abortion beyond 24 weeks in the UK, although there is much controversy over how these requirements are interpreted. Nevertheless, the vast majority of abortions are not carried out for those reasons. And so even before one considers biblical wisdom on specific cases, we can see that abortion in general is harmful, discriminatory and oppressive.

The sexual revolution is not delivering on its promises. Unrestrained sexual freedom is leading us down a dark path. We need a better way. We need to acknowledge that the inconsistency of our society over abortion reveals just how wanting the secular worldview is. If God is removed and the individual is the final arbiter of right and wrong, there is no ultimate restraint on the strong over the weak. And whilst the strong may self-righteously affirm their opposition to inequality, oppression and the denial of rights, they are quite prepared to turn a blind eye to such things when their personal comfort and freedom is in jeopardy.

Jesus displayed real outrage at this sort of hypocrisy, at those who thought themselves moral whilst trampling on the weak. And the apostle Paul's words are particularly apt: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Romans 2v1).

This is serious indeed. Though state-sponsored and generally accepted, abortion is something our society’s own standards judge is wrong. Yet it could be argued that there is more legal protection and anger over the destruction of property and wildflowers in our culture than there is over this mass destruction of human life.

One cannot but think that history will judge our generation terribly for its complacency over abortion. But we must remember the greater judge, turning to him in Christ for his mercy.

_____

[ This article has not been written to address the sensitivities surrounding abortion. If you have had an abortion or been party to one, please be assured that if you seek God’s forgiveness in Christ you have it – and with it peace and healing with respect to the past. Know too that within his church you will find welcome, acceptance and support as you seek to live the new life he calls us into. ]

Scientific facts about Homosexuality and Gender Dismorphia

I have been doing some study on transgender issues and been pointed to an edition of “The New Atlantis” journal, which outlines some of the scientific conclusions to date on both  gender and sexuality. It is a non-partisan and non-religious journal that seeks to make public up-to-date research so that people are properly informed.

Because there is so much misunderstanding fed to us through media and social media, I’ve included the entire executive summary below. It only takes a few minutes to read, but is important for us to be aware of for when our views as Christians are challenged, or when we have to talk about these things with our children.

Obviously the issues themselves are incredibly complex and should be handled with extreme compassion, but whilst acknowledging things aren’t always as cut and dried as below, the science is important.

You will note that the three great myths on these issues are without basis:

1)    The first myth is that people are born with a homosexual orientation or gender disconnect. This is often given as a reason why such feelings should be accepted and embraced, but this assumption is “not supported by scientific evidence.” (That's not to say there aren't elements of non-biological causation that might influence someone's development from an early age).

2)    The second myth is that people’s feelings in these areas are fixed. This is also given as a reason why such feelings should be seen as defining and embraced. Otherwise, we are told, people will never be able to experience intimate relationships or be their true self. In truth, both experiences are to some degree fluid, with many (I should stress not all) children growing out of them as they get older. This means that the way many children in particular are encouraged to act on such feelings is deeply concerning. Ironically, it is that which could work against their proper development and identity.

3)    The third myth is that those experiencing homosexual orientation or gender dysmorphia will only be fulfilled if they embrace their sense of who they are. The fact is that both groups are far more likely to experience mental health issues, depression and suicide. So this is not necessarily the case at all. Again, this shows how serious it is when children are encouraged to make these things so defining.

The Executive Summary
Some key findings:
Part One: Sexual Orientation
● The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence.
● While there is evidence that biological factors such as genes and hormones are associated with sexual behaviors and attractions, there are no compelling causal biological explanations for human sexual orientation. While minor differences in the brain structures and brain activity between homosexual and heterosexual individuals have been identified by researchers, such neurobiological findings do not demonstrate whether these differences are innate or are the result of environmental and psychological factors.
● Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults (although the extent to which this figure reflects actual changes in same-sex attractions and not just artifacts of the survey process has been contested by some researchers).
● Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.
Part Two: Sexuality, Mental Health Outcomes, and Social Stress
● Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.
● Members of the non-heterosexual population are estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.
● Members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population. Especially alarmingly, the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.
● There is evidence, albeit limited, that social stressors such as discrimination and stigma contribute to the elevated risk of poor mental health outcomes for non-heterosexual and transgender populations. More high-quality longitudinal studies are necessary for the “social stress model” to be a useful tool for understanding public health concerns.
Part Three: Gender Identity
● The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be “a man trapped in a woman’s body” or “a woman trapped in a man’s body” — is not supported by scientific evidence.
● According to a recent estimate, about 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as a gender that does not correspond to their biological sex.
● Studies comparing the brain structures of transgender and non-transgender individuals have demonstrated weak correlations between brain structure and cross-gender identification. These correlations do not provide any evidence for a neurobiological basis for cross-gender identification.
● Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.
● Children are a special case when addressing transgender issues. Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.
● There is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of interventions that delay puberty or modify the secondary sex characteristics of adolescents, although some children may have improved psychological well-being if they are encouraged and supported in their cross-gender identification. There is no evidence that all children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior should be encouraged to become transgender.

Responding to the Referendum

Last week’s vote to leave the EU was a momentous decision. It will no doubt bring thoughts of excitement from some, and worry from others. What follows are some brief thoughts to encourage and guide us.

1)      Christ reigns and human decisions, whether good or bad, fulfil his ultimate purposes and work for the good of his church (Eph 1v22).
2)      His way is often to use hardship to bring about greater good, just as he used the cross to being about salvation and uses suffering to mature his people. Whatever comes, our hope is in his wisdom and goodness. He knows what he is doing (Gen 50v20).
3)      He delights to humble the proud and exalt the humble. Whatever one thinks of the result, there has been some sense of this happening. And this can only be good for ensuring those who lead remember that they are those who serve (Lk 1v51-52).
4)      The result may lead to problems that could imply its outcome is a judgment on our nation for its rapid rejection of Christ and his ways. But it could equally lead to opportunity that could be a sign of his mercy and patience. It’s also possible that whatever comes to the UK could be for good the Lord is seeking to bring other nations (Ps 2v10-12).
5)      The ultimate hope for the UK as every nation is not in government, democracy or independence, it is in hearts turning in allegiance to Jesus and seeking to serve him within society (Matt 12v21).
6)      Heaven rejoices more when one sinner repents than when an election is won. Our politics may change but our mission remains the same (Lk 15v7).
7)      Only God knows whether Brexit will result in more coming to Christ that remain would have done. But it might do. Times of uncertainty remind us we are not in control of this life and need the Lord (Eccl 2v10-14).
8)      God is the one who appoints all in authority. So our calling as Christians is to respect and submit to the result of the referendum and to the politicians that lead us on. We should therefore guard how we respond (1 Pet 2v13-17).
9)      We are also to be peacemakers, and so we must display love, grace, and slowness of speech towards those we disagree with, whilst being ready to speak out against any attitudes of hatred and hostility that result (Rom 13v14-19).
10)   We should have a special concern for those from other nations living amongst us who will undoubtedly feel unsettled and unwanted. Jesus drew alongside those who felt outcasts (Jn 4v4-10).
11)   Called to seek the prosperity and peace of where we live, whatever our thoughts of the result of the referendum, we are now to roll up our sleeves and make the best of the UK that we can, encouraging our government to do the same (Jer 9v4-9).
12)   Finally, we are called to pray for those in authority that we might lead godly and quiet lives, and because God wants those from all walks of life to come to repentance. This should govern our prayers in coming weeks – prayer for wisdom in those who govern, prayer for politicians of calibre and Christian conviction to fill the political void, and prayer for freedom for believers to speak and live for the gospel in the UK and beyond. This is a time of immense importance. Pray, pray, pray.  (1 Tim 2v1-6).

Ten Reflections on BREXIT

Obviously the issues are highly complex - and we should guard against being armchair experts. My knowledge of politics and economics is extremely limited, but as a minister I do have responsibility to try to bring some more biblical reflection. So, for what they're worth, these are some of my thoughts.

(1) Where people live, and the nature of nations that result, is fluid and determined ultimately by God. Strikingly, a reason Paul gives for this is the access it gives people to God through the gospel (Acts 17v26-27). So we should reject any hard nationalism that simply wants to maintain the status quo or return to some past era. There is much to learn from and maintain from British history, but it has always developed through the influx of immigrants and its relationship to Europe. Our heritage is important, and we should call those with that heritage to re-embrace Christ as we should call everyone to him. We should also seek to bring Biblical truth to bear on our culture and government. But today's UK is a temporary entity as all nations are. And as its population becomes more diverse and its influence expanded within the EU, rather than battening down the hatches to protect what vestiges of Christianity remain, a missionary heart sees a God-given opportunity to impact more peoples and nations for Christ - just as the Roman Empire benefited the spread of the early church. This is a significant argument for remaining in, and although it may have some negative consequences in tolerating the EU’s faults, prioritising mission always has its costs. Having said this, although exit will lessen missionary opportunity, in our global village much would still remain.

(2) God's original and ultimate intent for humanity was to fill the world under the one government of the Lord Jesus. There is therefore no a priori reason for rejecting closer union. Indeed, one might say that just as a more Christianized nation would seek to better conform its laws to this universal rule of Christ, so it would seek to conform its structures in greater unity with other nations. Any vote to exit should not therefore be seen as a vote to essentially withdraw from Europe, but a vote to redefine the terms of our relationship.

(3) Sin has, however, corrupted this ultimate intent, causing humanity to unite in doing evil, whether self-glorifying and idolatrous projects as at Babel (Gen 11v1-9) or self-serving and hostile alliances as against Abraham (Gen 14). This should make us especially nervous of trans-national politics. God explicitly confused language so that humanity would scatter and be limited in the evil they could do, whereas the EU would seem to undermine this. Striking too is how the Bible ends with God judging the city of “Babylon.” She is considered great because of her wealth and trade, which cast a sort of spell over the rulers of the nations who trade with her. Wanting to benefit from her prosperity, they are drawn to share in her idolatry, sin and persecution of God’s people. And it is at this point that God calls his people to “come out” from her, so they are rescued from the humiliation and destruction God is about to bring (Rev 18). To simply equate the EU with Babylon would be a naïve and simplistic interpretation of the Bible. She represents wicked society in the service of Satan just as Jerusalem in the book represents the church in service of Christ. One could actually argue that the UK displays her traits in how it leads other nations to share its secular humanism and redefined morality. However, Revelation 18 surely warns us against allowing a desire for prosperity through trade to place us under the influence of others. Indeed, I can think of nowhere in scripture that the uniting of different nations is actually encouraged, but for in the gospel itself. Rather, what is commended is the principle of rejecting powerful alliances in order to do what is right even if one stands alone. Israel were to trust God and not compromise with surrounding nations for the sake of a security or prosperity that they should have looked to God to give. Each nation is responsible for shaping its own life before God and placing that before other concerns. And if a political union of nations leads to oppression, independence means a nation can provide sanctuary for those fleeing it. To my mind all this is a significant argument for exit, but makes it a step of faith in God to protect and provide. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that in already being part of the EU we should leave at this point. There is a biblical principle of remaining as one is until one has to change (1 Cor 7v17-20). The utopian vision of the EU is idolatrous, but so is the presumption of the UK government in redefining morality. If idolatrous or self-serving government required Christians to withdraw from involvement, Joseph would never have served in Egypt nor Daniel in the original Babylon.

(4) The British heritage of democratically accountable and limited government is, however, one of proved wisdom in checking these tendencies and flows from the democratic governance of ancient Israel. Sin means that no-one is entirely trustworthy to govern, and especially those who lack biblical wisdom or the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. Democracy should therefore be a key concern in the EU, and is I think the biggest reason to leave. More than anything else it enables us to check bad policy, change legislation or oust leaders, and so better ensure our own government fulfils the role God has granted it – something that is to some extent beyond our control whilst we belong to the EU. Influencing laws on the environment, trade and industry is one thing. But the EU also has some influence in areas of criminal justice, which is the sphere God is most concerned aligns with his will as to what is truly good and evil. However, I do feel claims that the EU is undemocratic have been overstated. What they express is the limit of having to agree EU policy with the democratically elected leaders of other countries. The council that comprises these leaders agrees the direction for the EU. And laws drafted by commissioners are only agreed after negotiation with this council and the elected European parliament. Because of Britain’s size and economy, alongside France, Germany and Italy, we have the greatest influence on the council with a substantial 29 of the 352 votes (compared to Malta’s 3 for example). Moreover, if EU laws were passed that were considered wholly unacceptable in Britain, our parliament could still refuse to adopt them. The reality is that by remaining we could at least keep a concern for democracy to the fore as a particularly British contribution to the EU. We could also maintain our influence over its direction, which would continue to affect us if we withdrew but wanted to keep trading with it. The alternative is to be a small independent nation on the edge of an overbearing EU without such a democratic conscience. What is clear is that any vote to remain should not be an acceptance of the EU's tendency towards centralization and integration, nor any lack of accountability and proneness to corruption.

(5) Trans-national political bodies can, however, be used for good or evil, as with the varied experiences of Judah under the Persian Empire recorded in Ezra-Nehemiah. Ultimately it is God who governs this. And in our day there could be benefits to the EU providing a check on the rapidly secularising UK, as nations with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox influence add to the EU mix. Romans 13v1 should lead us to see God's providential hand in this, causing us to consider whether he intends it for our benefit. However, we should not be naive. The EU’s constitution acknowledges Europe’s “cultural, religious and humanist” heritage, but glaringly omits the huge influence of Christianity. And its member states include those of numerous worldviews, including Islam and communism. Moreover, the EU has already shown itself ready to curtail freedom of speech and reject a commissioner because of his Christian views on sexuality. If an overtly secular consensus was gained within the EU, it could become very oppressive. At such a time exit would be essential, but it doesn't follow that we should exit now in anticipation of it. Only God knows the future, and he’s the one who determines it.

(6) The Persian attitude to the nation of Judah depended much on who was king, displaying how rule by a few is more prone to descend into tyranny than rule by many. This argues for the slow check of coalition government in more godless societies, and implies that the snail’s pace of change within the EU because of its many members could provide a check against localized tyranny where one party usually dominates as in the UK. It also means that a consensus that could oppress Christians is unlikely to form within the EU as it stands. Indeed, the idea of ever-closer political union itself seems rather a pipe-dream when considering the increasing and diverse member nations involved.

(7) Believers exiled in this world are to seek the prosperity and peace of where they live, and reject a rebellious hostility to the ungodly culture they live in (Jer 29v4-9). The focus is on the city in Jeremiah 29 because it was the geographical unit one benefited from. But the principle applies more broadly in justifying a concern for prosperity and peace if one can ascertain what would most promote it. Although there has been huge exaggeration on both sides of the debate, the consensus on these particular issues seems to be for remaining in - and not just for the benefits this would bring the UK, but the benefits our remaining in can bring to other nations. I find this the most significant argument for remaining in the EU for the Christian. We should not be driven by the self-centeredness that has marked so many of the arguments we’ve been hearing, but display a concern for others. And the principle of faithfulness should give us pause before withdrawing from a commitment we currently have to other nations. There is of course worry about the impact on our peace from the influx of Muslims and those not sharing our values. But none are advocating keeping out people on the basis of their faith or culture. Indeed, Muslims come from all over the world, whilst many European immigrants have a latent Christian worldview. One issue with regard to prosperity, however, is the impact of the EU's tariffs on those in the developing world outside the EU. These would seem to be unjust and unjustifiable. There is something deeply distasteful about favouring the European club when one considers the poverty elsewhere.

(8) God seems more concerned in scripture with the role of government than its form. Christians should therefore hold a particular concern for promoting government what will best punish evil, commend good, and enable them to live out and share their faith in peace (Rom 13v3-5, 1 Tim 2v1-4). My understanding is that there are significant concerns here about the compatibility of the EU and British legal systems, and the authority the EU has to override British laws. However we should not idealize British culture which is deeply broken and immoral. The influence of more conservative countries in Europe may actually provide a check to liberal humanist tendencies in the UK and their increasing expression in our legal system. Moreover, there could be real benefits for the influence of the gospel on our society's values from the sort of cultural mix resulting from European immigration and involvement. Churches report a much greater openness to Christ amongst immigrants. And the freedom of travel can only aid the spread of the gospel within Europe.

(9) Immigration is a key issue in the debate. It is mentioned throughout the Bible, enabling God's people to gain their land, but also leading to their corruption from others. It cannot be resisted on the grounds of owning any country as God is the one who determines where people live. Indeed, we are encouraged to welcome and care for the stranger. Nor can immigration be resisted because it might corrupt. England is not called to maintain its purity by exclusion in the way Israel was as God’s chosen nation. Rather, the primary reasons for prohibiting immigration would seem to be to protect prosperity and peace or the wellbeing of the weak and needy. Here we might support the idea of open borders so those in real need might face less barriers in seeking the help they need, whilst questioning a policy that gives preference to European immigrants over those from elsewhere. In particular this has led to it being harder for church leaders or missionaries from outside the EU to come here to train or serve. Against supporting such easy immigration is the fact that it drives down wages, drives up house prices, and puts pressure on infrastructure - all of which causes our country's poor to suffer and social strife to result. Unlimited immigration cannot therefore be supported. But these problems could and should be lessened by using the increase in taxes immigrants bring to ensure wages are sufficient and infrastructure is developed. Moreover, the Christian should at least be ready in principle to share the good God has blessed our nation with, and even if that means things aren't quite as good as they once were for us. However, the immigration issue is not, to my mind, critical for deciding the referendum. Any trade relationship that is maintained with the EU is likely to require the free movement of peoples. And even if not, immigration would continue to some extent from inside and outside the EU. Moreover, inside the EU, we can already reduce those coming from other continents if we really want to. We should also consider that as the EU itself benefits eastern European countries, migration to England may become less attractive. And it could be argued that as more scantly populated parts of the country increase in their population through immigration, so their quality of life could increase too. The problems of immigration are felt quickly. Its benefits take longer to become evident.

(10) Given all the above we must end noting how consistently God in scripture urges the wise to heed good advice. "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed" (Prov 15v22). "For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers" (Prov 11v14). "The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice" (Prof 12v15). It is possible the majority of politicians, business leaders and economists who favour remaining in are blinkered and self-serving. But scripture would urge us to great caution in rejecting what they have to say. At the very least, it encourages us not to make a decision on the basis of instinct, but because we have properly considered the arguments of such "advisers" on both sides of the debate.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the question of in or out is between how “in” might benefit prosperity and peace and how “out” would uphold sovereignty and democracy. Staying in is a more pragmatic choice and would almost certainly benefit the UK and the gospel more in the foreseeable future. Coming out is a more principled choice, but less certain in its benefits, which would be to protect us in the long term against possible bad lawmaking and government from the EU.

In what ways can church ministry and worship be infected by rationalism or relativism?

[A brief answer to a question posed after a couple of seminars on rationalism and relativism]

First, there is a danger of labelling churches or ministries that are word-centred as rationalistic. Here we must ask whether God himself is word-centred. John 1 tells us he is, as does the existence of the Bible itself. The first Christians devoted themselves to the apostles teaching (Acts 2v42). Paul preached through the night even after one hearer fell out of the window asleep, died and was raised! The book of Hebrews ends describing itself as just a “short” letter.

Second, there is an equal danger of labelling churches or ministries that make much of emotion or music as relativistic. Here we must ask whether God makes much of these things. The picture of the saints praising God in the book of revelation, and the existence of 150 psalms tell us he does. The first Christians were marked by joy, praising God day by day (Acts 2v43f). Paul taught that song was a particular mark of being filled with the Spirit. And even in the Old Testament temple, choirs were employed just to sing the psalms, with the whole range of emotion they portray.

The point is this: In all cultures it should be a both-and to the above, not an either-or. It is not that word-centred churches better reach rationalistic modernist people, and those stressing emotion and music the relativistic postmoderns. No, the worship God looks for is one that worships him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4).

Consider a biblical anthropology: We reject God as our hearts desire what is sinful, and so we refuse to accept his word with our minds. Conversely, when converted the Spirit of God uses the word of the gospel to change our hearts so that they desire God and so will accept his truth (1 Peter 1v23). And from that point, the means by which we engage with him is as his truth informs our mind and, by that means, enflames our hearts so that we love and want to obey him (Eph 4v17-24, Rom 12v1-2).

It is striking that in some churches, it is either the sheer quantity of Bible teaching that is assumed to prove God’s presence with the church, or the atmosphere evoked by a certain style of music or an inner sense of God those at the church claim to have. But a cursory look through the early chapters of Acts reveals that the post-Pentecost feelings that mark the presence of God the Holy Spirit are not so vague. They were certainly related to the tireless preaching the apostles gave themselves to. But they were the feelings that came in response, when the heart was gripped by their teaching: deep conviction when grasping the seriousness of sin (Acts 2v37, Jn 16v8), reverent fear when grasping God’s holiness (Acts 5v11), and joyful thanks when grasping his grace (Acts 2v46-47, Col 3v16-17). First and foremost, the primary feeling the Spirit evokes in the New Testament, is one of deep love towards God as our creator and redeemer (Gal 5v22).

Given all this, we can start to ask what a church infected with rationalism or relativism might look like.

We have seen that rationalism is not about engaging reason per se. All our teaching and wider ministry should do that. No, it describes those who rely on reason for knowledge rather than God. So a church is infected with rationalism when the teaching of the Bible is rejected because people think they know better – rejecting certain truths because they don’t understand them or can’t rationally accept them. Rationalism may also be seen in the preacher who presumes that just by teaching scripture people will understand, rather than by combining this with fervent prayer for God to enlighten them. It is seen in the preacher who simply preaches to the mind, rather than to the heart through the mind; ie. the preacher who fails to emphasize the appropriate emotional response, focusing simply on what should be believed or done. It would also be seen in the church that doesn’t help the congregational to respond from the heart by giving adequate time to pray home what is said, or express conviction of sin in confession or joy and thanksgiving in song.

Similarly, relativism is not about expressing feelings per se. We have seen that all our teaching and wider ministry move us to that too. No, relativism describes those who see all truth relative to what the individual establishes it to be, often grounding this in their subjective sense of what is right or wrong rather than the objective revelation of God. So a church is infected with relativism when the teaching of the Bible is rejected because it just doesn’t feel right and makes people uncomfortable. It is seen in the preacher who simply appeals to people’s hearts with exhortation and anecdote, rather than actually explaining the scriptures so they understand. It is seen in songs and music that seek to elicit emotions that are not in response to God’s truth. It is seen when it is assumed that a certain atmosphere or inner sense reflects the presence of God, rather than locating his certain presence in feelings of conviction, reverence, joy and love fanned into flame by the gospel.

Of course a final question is over how best to teach congregations that inevitably contain those who lean towards rationalism or relativism. The answer must be, by teaching the whole Bible - by making much of its internal logic and argument, and much of its images and emotion; by teaching not just Paul’s letters, but the poetry of the prophets, not just the law, but the gospels etc etc.
 

Christians in an internet age

I have something to confess. I am a “user.” I am a user of the internet. And how to do that in a distinctly Christian way is therefore something I am having to constantly think through.

I am also a father of three children – aged 11, 8 and 6. So this is a big issue as I seek to guide them too.

Now, if you want a book sized treatment, this is the best book to go to. “The Next Story” by Tim Challies.

In it, he writes: “By the time today’s digital native reaches his twenties, he will have spent some 20,000 hours accessing the Internet and 10,000 hours playing video games. All of this digital immersion takes place during those formative years when the brain is developing, when it is very sensitive to any kind of outside influence. His brain will be shaped by digital technologies, just as printed books shaped his father’s brain.”

I take it none of us would doubt the impact of the internet. And the issues it raises are too many to list: Surfing, streaming, shopping and social media – the internet impacts pretty much every part of life. And we’ve got just twenty minutes!

So we’re going to cover 4 top tips with two points under each. We need to consider them not just for our children’s use, but for our own – not least so we set a good example to them.

And if you think we focus more on negatives than positives, can I encourage you to remember the garden of Eden. There God focused on the negative: “Do not eat of that tree.” But he did it, so that Adam and Eve would be able to enjoy the rest of the garden freely and without worry.

Well, this is similar. We need to put a few things in place, so that we can freely enjoy the good the internet offers.

(1)  Top Tip: Be thoughtful – this is about our minds.
It sounds obvious, and I guess it’s why you’re here. But it is so easy to just engage on line like a technological Zombie, blundering unawares, this way and that.

First here, we need to appreciate the internet’s potential.
Technology can be used for both good and bad. Smelting down gold could be used in Israel for adorning the temple or building the golden calf.

Now at the two extremes here, you get cavemen and spacemen. Cavemen are sceptics, naturally nervous of new technology.
If that’s you, you need to see technology as a result of our God given mandate to subdue the creation – utilizing its resources for good. The internet can be received with thanks from God. It can be used for immense creativity, to communicate with people we might not be able to communicate with otherwise. It can therefore develop or deepen community. It can celebrate what is good and noble and pure. And it can contribute to the realm of ideas, helping people think through false ideas and consider the truths of God.

Having said all this, I mentioned spacemen. They are those whose instinct is to wholeheartedly embrace new technology.

If that’s you, you need to remember how humanity perverted their call to subdue the world, using technology to build the tower of Babel in great arrogance – being so focused on that, that they neglected their responsibility to scatter out and fill the world.

And so, second, we need to appreciate the internet’s impact.
Four seem most dominant. It distracts. The bleeps, the quick checks during dinner or conversation or work, the constant multitasking. Studies have shown they not only distract as we do them, but wire our brains so that they cannot focus.

It distracts. It also trivializes. The speed with which it forces us to scan information, breeds a concern for quick knowledge over considered truth. The constant access to entertainment and cheeky videos, leads people away from harder realities than need consideration.

It distracts. It trivializes. It corrupts. Whatever we want to see, hear, get or think on, it is only a couple of clicks away. And the internet bombards us with little tempters to those things.

It distracts, trivializes and corrupts. It also isolates. This is ironic. The very thing it claims to enhance – communication – is the very thing it undermines. As it fills people lives they give less time to deeper face to face relationships. And as it unites people in forums of shared interest or identity – whether in terms of a games, hobbies, sexuality or gender - it keeps them from interacting with the diversity of community that so helpfully gives perspective on our own issues and helps us learn from others.

(2) Top Tip: Be godly – this is about our desires
Remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 15v18-19? “Out of the heart come evil thoughts – murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person.”

He spoke this to Pharisees. All their rules and regulations couldn’t eradicate their sin. Likewise, unless we have God change our hearts – the things we love and want – no amount of checks and balances will keep us from compromise online.

First then, we must train our hearts.
We must recognize how we can look to technology as an idol. Relying on it not God to provide us with all wisdom, with a better life – even with an identity.

Instead we must recognize these things come from God. We must love him over all. And if we do, we will prioritise his wisdom and become less interested in massing information online. We’ll value his life of godliness and joy in the things of his creation and so not want what is ungodly and unreal. And we’ll delight in being his children, being formed for the world to come. So we won’t feel the pull to spend so much time on forums about other identities, or portray ourselves dishonestly to others.

Do you see? Everything flows from this. Perhaps the key characteristics needed as we engage online are truthfulness in what we say, humility in how we present ourselves, and purity in how we conduct ourselves. But all these things will only come if we first love God more.

Second, however, we must also learn contentment.
Just as Paul said he “learnt contentment” in Philippians 4v11, this is such a critical mindset to learn.

The internet offers an unlimited amount of information, music, TV, porn, people, identities and goods we can engage with. And, biblically speaking, “contentment” is the only remedy for excess and the greed that it encourages.

We don’t need that mass of information about that miniscule part of life or about what our friends get up to every day. We don’t need to hear yet another song or see another program essentially on the same thing. We don’t need to be sexually gratified through watching sex acts.

The first Christians managed with less information in their lifetime than you probably store on our phone. So unplug. Smell the roses. Unsubscribe from sites and blogs you don’t need. Browse less and buy less.

(3)  Top Tip: Be controlled – this is about our decisions.
Remember the fruit of the Spirit? What ends the list? “Self-control.” Has there every been a greater need of it.

We must remember that the internet is our servant not our master. God has commissioned us by creation to subdue the earth – to bring order to our own lives and to our use of the world’s resources in every respect.

The irony with the internet, is that it tricks us. It gives us the illusion that we are in control. We can speak to, see or buy pretty much whatever we want. But the reality of course is that the internet then controls us. We feel we can’t do without it.

A 2010 study of 1600 adults, found that a third of women from 18-34 check facebook as soon as they wake up – even before going to the bathroom. 21% say they check it in the middle of the night. And 39%v declared they were addicted.

Well in seeking to regain control, there are two things to consider.

First, seek what’s best.
That’s essentially what wisdom is. It is to do what is best. And one of the traits of the internet is amateurism. Article after article, blog after blog, post after post, emanating from arm chair experts. Speculation abounds. Think wikipedia. An encyclopedia that anyone can input into.

But it’s not just amateurism in terms of information. The nature of the internet leans towards what titillates. It’s the banal and funny posts on facebook that get all the likes. The profound and thoughtful ones often far less.

So in controlling your involvement, seek what is best. Seek out the articles that are well researched and have weight. Read thoughtfully rather than just skimming as much information as possible. Don’t let email and facebook replace conversation on the phone and face to face. Unsubscribe from sites that just waste your time. Don’t bother clicking on videos that will eat up that five minutes with family or doing better things.

Second, tame your typing.
Consider Proverbs 10v18-21: “Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool. Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues. The tongue of the righteous is choice silver, but the heart of the wicked is of little value. The lips of the righteous nourish many, but fools die for lack of sense.

There’s so much here isn’t there? The fool spreads slander – untruth about others. And when other say what’s wrong, prudence doesn’t exacerbate it by multiplying words. And what is said, must be righteous as only this is of value and good.

Make a decision not to post anything before you’ve asked these questions: (1) Is it really true? (2) What will the impact of saying it be? (3) Does it really need to be said? (4) Is it righteous?

Now time is pretty much gone. Our final top tip is the one we’re so aware of.

(4) Be accountable – this is about your safety

First and above all else, we must keep ensuring we fear the Lord.  
Only a constant awareness that he and even his angels see everything we do, will give us the check we need. And remember he will judge not just every act, but every word spoken – Matthew 12v37, and every motive too – 1 Corinthians 4v5.

Second, we must set up protection too.
Here, just remember A-B-C-D:
A – is for access. Ensure your devices are accessible to another adult. Tell your children that a condition on their having devices is that you have their password and can check them at any time.

B – is for block. Parental blocks from your internet provider will help. You can also put these on search engines and you tube. Better still is to pay for something called “covenant eyes.” You can block certain types of sites and be emailed if dodgy sites are accessed. This means your children know you will know if they look for things they shouldn’t. But it also means you know a fellow adult will be notified if you do.

An “app-lock” app is really good too. You can lock down certain apps on you or your children’s devices – and even specify times they won’t work.

C - is for cap. Consider capping the amount of screen time each day. Screen free days or weekends or weeks. Whatever you need.

D - is for discuss. With all this, you need to keep talking to one-another about your internet use and its dangers. Especially giving your children reasons why you are keeping things in check, teaching them the discernment they will need as Christians in an internet age.

Conclusion
Apparently Plato – the Greek Philosopher expressed great concern that the new technology of – writing – would be deeply damaging. He thought it change how we understand space, destroy our memories and focus us on facts rather than wisdom.

He may have had a point.

The fact is, that every new technology brings concerns. But that is not a reason to reject it. However, it is a reason to be discerning in its use. So above all else, it is perhaps discernment that we all need.

Well, we haven’t mentioned prayer. But you could pin Paul’s prayer in Philippians 1:9-10 to your computer:And this is my prayer” he says: “that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ.”

Why the law?

Development of a sermon preached Sunday 3 October 2015.

Our need of God’s law
It is reported that in England, 40% of girls have sex before the legal age of 16. This is higher than in any other of the 24 European countries surveyed.

We are a country that has morally lost its bearings. A cloud of relativism has hidden the star we should navigate by. And as happens when people walk in the dark – our culture is profoundly broken and confused.

We see this in the everyday things of broken relationships and dishonesty in public life. But just think of the tidal wave of ethical debates we’ve faced in just the last few years: Same-sex marriage, three parent babies, gender selective abortion, trans-sexualism, assisted suicide.

They’re all signs that our culture has lost its moorings. Everything is suddenly uncertain. And because God’s revelation has been rejected, people have no firm grounding for deciding these issues. So those who shout the loudest tend to get their way. Or whatever affirms our individualism becomes the default. Little thought is given to the impact of these decisions on community life or its consequences elsewhere.

And so as Christians we need light for two particular reasons: First, so that as citizens of heaven we can stand apart from this moral meltdown and live lives that truly honour God. Second, so that as citizens of earth we can speak into this moral meltdown, influencing the mind of our society for good and showing just how wise God’s ways are.

This is why we are going to be studying the Ten Commandments this term. They form part of what the Bible calls “God’s law.”

Now we need to understand this term. We’ll see that at one level it refers to all God requires of people. But at another, it refers to the specific commands God gave Israel through Moses. They’re recorded in the Old Testament books of Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

You may have heard that there’s quite a diversity of material in the Mosaic law. Sceptics often ridicule Christians as selective in applying it today. They say we make much of what it says about things like sexuality, but ignoring what it says about what food should be eaten.

So we’re going to establish some basic principles for how we should read the law – and with it the Ten Commandments.

Rules on the fridge
If there is one image you take away as you think about the law – I hope it is the image of a list of rules for children on your fridge door.

Think for a moment about them. What might you include? You shall not flick your food. You shall not burp. You shall not stand on the table. You shall not climb out of the window.

Now this list is particular to your house isn’t it? Not every house has a window by the table you can climb out of. And it’s particular to you as children too. You need these strict rules when young because you’re so out of control. But when you grow up you’re able to control yourself and your behaviour will be much more nuanced.

So it’s right to say the list is not applicable as a whole to other families or to you as an adult. But it is still applicable in other ways. So far as their situation is similar, families would do well to adopt it. And, even as an adult, recalling it will remind you of its deeper concern with good manners, and politeness, and respect for others – moving you not only to instinctively abide by its rules, but the attitudes they reflect as well.

Well so it is with the Old Testament law. Speaking of Israel in Galatians 3v24, Paul says “the law was like a child’s guardian until Christ came.” In other words, like rules on the fridge, as a “package” it was only temporary – keeping Israel together so that Christ would be born.

The sense is that as Christians, Jews have become grown up. So they no longer need this sort of regime. They are filled with the Holy Spirit. So they are able to fulfil not only the precepts of the law but the attitude of the heart they reflected. Galatians 5v14: “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.”

Well, let’s turn to Deuteronomy 4. Here, we see three points that we can draw out about the law:
(1)    The law no longer applies as a package for anyone
(2)    OT laws do still apply as a proto-types for society
(3)    OT laws do still apply as principles for the heart 

(1) The law no longer applies as a package for anyone
Listen to some of the laws still current in the UK that you need to be very aware of: It is an offence to beat or shake any carpet rug or mat in any street in the Metropolitan Police District, although you are allowed to shake a doormat before 8am. It is illegal to keep a pigsty in front of your house (unless duly hidden). It is illegal to order or permit any servant to stand on the sill of any window to clean or paint it. It is an offence to be intoxicated (drunk) and in charge of a cow in Scotland!

We recognize that laws change according to context. It’s obvious that these laws are ultimately concerned with orderly conduct and health and safety. These are givens. But how the principles the laws reflect should apply at different points in history will differ.

Well, take a look at Deuteronomy 4v5. What time is the law Moses was giving for? For Israel’s time in the land.

1) We see the law no longer applies as a package for contextual reasons
We must realise God’s law wasn’t shaped for a western technological society, but for a nation with a particular calling – to be God’s holy people, in a particular culture – the Ancient Near East, and a particular circumstance – forty years in a desert and then life possessing another nation’s land.

So its laws reflected this. The laws about eating certain foods were to emphasize that Israel were to be different from the nations. Their festivals and sacrifices reflected worship of God in an agricultural society. Their laws on war reflected what was necessary to take Canaan.

2) We see that the law no longer applies as a package for covenantal reasons
This couldn't be clearer than in Galatians 3v25: "Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian." In their spiritual infancy, God's people needed the rigidity of the law for two reasons. First, it was to convict Israel – so that the people would see just how sinful they were, and how in need of the saviour the sacrifices pointed to (Romans 7). Second, it was to constrain Israel – so the nation could remain stable and endure God’s special presence without his anger breaking out at them (Galatians 3v23).

Paul's point is that the law anticipated the day when faith would be directly placed in Christ. And now that time has come, God's people have become spiritually mature. Now the Holy Spirit does these two things, so there is no longer the need for such a tight regime.

It is for this reason we must reject what’s known as a theonomic understanding of the law. Its proponents commendably assert the relevance of God’s law today. However they do this by stating that only its ceremonial aspects have passed with the coming of Christ. So its moral and civil commands apply directly to Christians and to the structures of society too. Not only will theonomists therefore assert the law’s moral principles should influence public policy, for example, on marriage; but that as a society is Christianized it should work towards directly applying the law’s penalties too. Moreover, any government that takes responsibilities to itself that the law didn’t assign to government in the time of Moses is moving beyond its divine remit. An example would be in taxing the more well-off to fund welfare schemes.

The problem in all this is that it just doesn’t do justice to both the contextual and covenantal reasons why the Mosaic law was only temporary. Its scope may well have reflected a simplicity only necessary in such a technologically primitive culture. Certainly, its laws had a particular spiritual purpose for the people of Israel in preparing them for Christ, that is not one God has for every society. Both its laws and penalties may well have reflected a particular importance of, say, the family in this. And although we must affirm its penalties were entirely just and right, they would have reflected a particular degree of accountability for wrongdoing consistent with Israel’s privileges in having witnessed God act in her history. As is clear throughout the scriptures, the penalties justice demands are relative to revelation received (Lk 10v13-15, Lk 12v48).

Having said all this, a thoughtful consideration of the contextual and covenantal particularities to OT law, of how it is viewed throughout scripture, and of parallels with society today, does mean that its principles can nevertheless be applied. And in a heavily Christianized society, where the population has a high awareness of God’s acts and ways, we might see a degree of close conformity between both its laws and penalties and those of Israel. This takes us to our second point.

(2) OT laws do apply as proto-types for society
The law was not only to convict and constrain Israel, but to commend Israel too. Have a look from Deuteronomy 4v6-8.

King Alfred the Great is credited as bringing the birth of our nation into being. And part of that was a law code, called the “Doom” book. It makes much of justice – of protecting the weak and dealing with people fairly, whether poor or rich. And it is accepted that this had a significant impact in ensuring subsequent British law has been just and fair.

Well there’s no surprise for guessing where Alfred got his inspiration. Essentially he gathered and updated the laws from three other Christian Saxon kingdoms. But he did it on the basis of God’s law. The Doom Book began with an introduction containing the Ten Commandments in English, the Mosaic Law from Exodus 21 to 23, and Jesus’ call to do to others as you would have them do to you. He even included a brief account of apostolic history and the growth of Christian law among Christian nations.

Despite the way the law reflected Israel’s particular calling, culture, circumstances and covenant, God teaches there are aspects to it that other societies should want to emulate. More than that, they are accountable to him if they don’t live by these things.

So Leviticus 18v24-28 tells us the Canaanite nations were driven out by God for sexual practices that contravened God’s laws earlier in the chapter. This tells us that the law’s teaching on sex is different from its teaching on foods. The teaching on foods applies only to Israel back then, because it reflected her particular calling as a holy nation. But the teaching on sex is more foundational, applying to other cultures and circumstances too.

Isaiah implies wider application should be our default position with God’s law if it is not geared to Israel’s special calling. Isaiah 24v5 tells us the final judgment will come because humanity have “disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant.” More positively we are told that “righteousness exalts a nation” (Prov 14v34) and that good rule is one that reflects God’s righteousness (Prov 8v15-21) – where righteousness is what reflects Israel’s laws (Deut 4v8).

The heart of God’s law is his concern that Israel are like him: “Be holy as I am holy” he says again and again. Now he created all humanity to image him and to rule or govern on that basis. So, it follows that the laws that are not geared simply to Israel’s unique calling, reflect his righteous character. They show what it looks like to image God in Israel’s context. And so, as long as we account for legitimate changes of context, these laws can and should be applied to any society. This is just the point Chris Wright makes so clearly in his book “Living as the people of God.” Living in the land under God’s rule, Israel are a paradigm of humanity in general living on the earth in accountability to God as patterned in Eden.

In terms of humanity’s accountability, we must recognize that the Ten Commandments have a central place. Take a look at Deuteronomy 4v12-13.

The importance of the Ten Commandments is highlighted in two ways. First, can you see God declared them personally. At Mount Sinai, the people heard him recite them himself. Second, God wrote them personally. Can you see that? Elsewhere we’re told the “finger of God” inscribed them on the stone. Now God doesn’t have fingers – so this probably refers to some miraculous way Moses saw the words appear.

When you read through Israel’s laws you realize that they are basically these Ten Commandments, but applied to Israel particular situation. And so it is entirely fitting for us to consider ethics, by considering these commandments – how they were applied to Israel’s society, and then how they might apply to our own.

We have become so used to secularism that the relevance of OT law for society, assumed by Christians in the past, is so often ignored by Christians today. But it is an historic fact that Western Society flourishes on borrowed capital from Christianity. This is symbolised by the fact that British monarchs are charged at their coronation to keep "mindful of the Law and Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian princes." Even Angela Merkel recognizes it, commenting that the problem with cohesion in Europe is “not too much Islam" but "too little Christianity.” Again, in his book "Time of Transitions" the sociologist and thinker Jurgen Habermas writes: "Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct heir of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love...To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."

So we ignore the law of God as a society at our peril. Yet, having said this, how we talk of the law in society is important. First, we should do it with realism – recognizing that without the regenerating work of the Spirit that comes through faith in Christ, people will break these laws. And when unbelievers do, we should not act surprised, which is to imply to our society that people are better than they are, and can actually do good. Instead we should explain that this is the reality of sin that God’s law highlights. Second, we should speak of the law without moralism. We must be clear that better keeping these laws is good, but it isn’t the way to God’s favour and acceptance because we can never keep them fully. Rather we need the forgiving and renewing work of Christ.

(3) OT laws do apply as principles for the heart
Turn now, would you, to our second reading in Matthew 5v17-20. Here we see the change Jesus has brought.

As elsewhere, we see his high view of the Old Testament. Verse 18: It is accurate, authoritative and continually relevant down to the least serif used in the Hebrew lettering. So, verse 19: Every single command of the law must still be obeyed and taught in the church. But, there is a difference. It’s there in verse 17.

The meaning of these words is much debated. But their sense is most probably this: We are not called to obey and teach God’s laws as if Jesus had never come. No we are to teach and obey it giving due weight to how his life, death and resurrection confirm and deepen our understanding of them - of their purpose, and of whether or not they are applicable in different contexts.

Verse 17 implies Jesus fulfils the law in a similar manner to which he fulfils the prophets. In other words, he is the point they were looking to – their goal. Together they gave detail about God’s coming king and kingdom. So no law is abolished in its relevance. But some are relevant in what they reveal about God’s king and the nature of his kingdom. Whereas others are relevant in revealing the way the subjects of that kingdom are to live.

It’s rather like looking at light rays refracted through a prism. Every ray or law is significant. Yet we see the particular significance of each so much more clearly and brilliantly through the prism of Christ.

Now key here, is understanding the nature of Christ’s kingdom as opposed to the Old Testament kingdom of Israel. Christ’s kingdom is one in which the Holy Spirit is active, fulfilling the promise of Jeremiah 31 in “writing God’s law on the heart” – which is described in Ephesians 4v24 as being “re-created to be like God, in true righteousness and holiness.”

The logic is this: Acting according to the law written on the heart is the same as acting according to God’s righteous character from the heart.

The Old Testament law only applied the image of God outwardly. But by considering the principle behind it, we are now to apply it to Christians inwardly too.

So in what follows Jesus immediately teaches he is not just concerned with the outer acts of murder and adultery, but the inner acts of hatred and lust. This deepening of God’s law to a higher standard for Christians is I think the key to the whole chapter. This is why general divorce, oaths and hatred of one’s enemy were permitted under Moses, but not under Christ (Matt 5v31-48). But note, it’s not just what some term the “moral” laws that Jesus says must be taught and kept. It is all God’s law. And so we find the NT apply the principle of generous thankfulness in the OT offerings to offering ourselves and our money to God (Rom 12v-12, Phil 4v18). It applies the need for making an atoning sacrifice and for being cleansed by ritual washing to our need to draw close to God on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice (Heb 10v22). It applies the command not to touch what is unclean to being set-apart from unbelievers (2 Cor 6v17).

Perhaps more than any other, I have found Doug Moo’s understanding of the law most helpful. But here we must part from it. He seems to join others in speaking only of the abiding relevance of the law’s moral aspects. But he also states that these should only be applied to the Christian where Jesus or the apostles apply them and not in other circumstances. It is this that he says is meant by “the law of Christ.” But we have seen that all the law applies through Christ. And so we must see the instances where Jesus and the apostles apply it as not exhaustive but exemplary – providing a methodology for how we should apply other aspects of the law too.

And it is of course the standard of love that is critical here. Jesus made this so clear by saying that love for God and neighbour sums up all the commandments. And Paul stated that “love fulfils the law.”

Personally, I think it is this that Paul means by “the law of Christ”: The law of Christ comprises the love principles reflected in the Old Testament law applied to the Christian through Christ. So Paul speaks of the law of Christ when urging Christians to bear each others burdens – an act of love (Gal 6v1-2).

And we should note that the only command or law Jesus declared “new” was his command to “love one-another” (Jn 13v34). This makes much sense as love is the essence of what it is to image God. And so we might define God's law as "love applied" - understanding this of course by the definition of love in scripture, not that of any society.

As we deal with each commandment then, we’re going to consider the love principles reflected in it, and not only apply them ethically to wider society allowing for changes in context, but to our hearts as Christians too, allowing for the change in covenant.

Our need of grace
But in this, we must never forget it comes to us through Christ. And so we can’t consider the law without first considering grace. We seek to obey it not to earn or deserve our salvation, but because we have already received it. We’ve been forgive our sins, and brought into Christ’s kingdom. We therefore obey because we love him as our King and are filled with his own Spirit.

And so as the Ten Commandments convict us of our sin, we must do two things: Seek Christ’s forgiveness in full confidence if we are repentant. And pray for his help, recognizing that if we would be more faithful to him, we can’t do it without the insight, energy and love for God and others only his Spirit gives.

Gender confusion

The reality of gender confusion
In recent weeks Bruce Jenner, an Olympian, has featured on the cover of Vanity Fair as one Caitlyn Jenner. He’s become the most high-profile example of what people are calling a “trans-woman.” That’s someone who was “assigned male at birth” but whose gender identity is said to be “that of a woman.” But gender confusion doesn’t stop there. Facebook now lists 51 genders its users can choose from.

One explanatory article is helpful in understanding the thinking behind what’s going on. It distinguishes “sex” as a matter of biology, from “gender” which it says is “your personal sense of who you are.” It continues: “Most of us never question or think much about our gender, but it’s an essential part of our identity. And given the endlessly diverse ways people experience their gender, their bodies, and their masculinity or femininity, it’s a wonder there are so few words to describe it. Except there are actually (at least) dozens of gender terms, and Facebook is now offering its users numerous options to present their gender identity to their Facebook friends in the same way they do in the real world (or a different way – because, hey, it’s your gender identity and you can do what you want).”[1]

Some reasons for gender confusion
It’s a telling quote in all sorts of ways. And it highlights at least four reasons why gender is so confused in our day:

1) Our rebellion. Difficult as it might sound in our day even to Christians, you cannot just “do what you want” with your gender. It is given us by God. To think we can displays our sinful desire to be God, and so determine who we really are (Gen 3v5-6).

2) Our confusion. The Bible tells us this rebellion leads to us being foolish in our thinking and subject to all sorts of wrong feelings (Rom 1v21-27, Eph 5v17-29). So we find ourselves unable to understand who we are properly. Rather than assess the stereotypes of masculinity and femininity by scripture, people feel if they don’t fit that they belong to a different gender and may then seek biological change.

3) Our naivety. Not acknowledging how sin has led to a confusion of our thinking and feeling, it is assumed that if we think or feel we are a different gender then that is trustworthy, and that is who we really are. More than that, sin has fractured the natural order, including our bodies. So people termed “intersexual” are actually born without clear biological gender (Rom 8v20). Biblically that should be seen as a deformity. But our culture has no recognition that we and our world are broken, and so what seems natural or right is assumed to be so.

4) Our dualism. Rather ironically in a culture that is so concerned with the physical environment, people see their humanity as divided. The physical body is just a shell, whereas the inner person, or soul, is the trustworthy bit that defines who we are. If we feel we are something other than our biological gender, this is therefore assumed to be the real us, and our body something we can just change to fit. This view may stem from the influence of eastern religion. But contrasting it, the Bible presents us as a unified embodied-soul. Who we are is defined both by the physical body God has given us as well as our inner self. This is seen most clearly in the fact that our final state isn’t to be a disembodied spirit, but to be resurrected in a new body.

Gaining gender clarity
In the light of all this, it is critical that we understand what it is to be male and female. And there are two essential truths that are paramount.

1) Gender is not defined by character or personality.
I can see nowhere that the Bible defines masculinity as being particularly sporty or brave or direct or rational or liking the colour blue; nor women as particularly sensitive or nurturing or emotional or creative or with a preference for pink.

Of course we don’t know how sporty Jesus was, nor what colours he favoured. But he was certainly all these other things! Our identity as men and women is as sons and daughters of God who were all made to image him and be restored into that image. So true masculinity is to be biological male and like Christ, and true femininity, to be biologically female and like Christ.

That’s not to deny there are attributes that are more dominant in particular genders. Our biology, the impact of sin, and the presuppositions of our culture may lean us towards certain traits. But despite that, what the Bible does teach is that if you are a sensitive man or a more direct woman, you are no less male or female. In fact, if you are an insensitive man, you are lacking in your maleness because that is an aspect of God’s image you lack. And if you lack directness as a woman, you are lacking in your femaleness as that is an aspect of God’s image you lack too.

Having said all this, although the Bible rejects cultural stereotypes regarding character and personality as defining one’s gender, it is quite clear that distinction between the genders should be upheld according to cultural norms with regard to appearance. So it forbids cross-dressing and commends arranging one’s appearance in a way that is common to one’s gender (Deut 22v5, 1 Cor 11v2-16). The reason for this is the importance of affirming the difference between the genders for the sake of clarity with respect to their different roles within marriage (1 Cor 11v7-12). This leads to our next point.

2) Gender is defined by role and biology.
This is the key. In making humanity in his image, why did God create woman as a distinct gender? Because Adam didn’t have a helper suitable for helping in him in his task (Gen 2v18-25). So the differences in the genders flows directly from the different roles God intended for them in creation. And so men and women are created different for the sake of (1) the particular task of filling and subduing the earth (Gen 1v28), and (2) the further task of imaging God in how they do this – most especially by picturing his relationship with his people (Gen 1v27, Eph 5v22-33).

About women
In terms of “filling the earth,” women are therefore biologically created for bearing children, making nurturing of younger children their primary role (Gen 3v16, 1 Tim 2v15). And we should note that throughout most of history, the vast majority would have been married and this would have dominated their lives. They would have breastfed their children until 2-3 years old, by which time another child might have been born. It is for this practical reason that women’s sphere is portrayed as predominantly that of the home. Nevertheless, we should note men are also expected to raise their children (Eph 6v4) and engage in domestic life (Gen 18v3-8).

About men
In a general sense men were biologically created stronger so that they could engage in manual labour in order to provide for their wife and children and so enable women to fulfil their particular role. Providing for his family is therefore man’s primary role in scripture (Gen 3v17-19, 1 Tim 5v8). In this the husband is to picture how God in Christ gives himself up for the good of his people (Eph 5v28-29). If there is an option, the husband should therefore remain the primary provider, not only freeing his wife to use her time for the children and so organising things at home, but for other service in the church and community she might choose to engage in as well (1 Tim 5v9-14). This is why, in “subduing the earth,” men have historically dominated outside the home. But, again, this has not been to the exclusion of women. Eve was to help Adam in caring for the garden and so to some degree "enter the workplace" to provide for their children too (Gen 2v15-24, also Prov 31v13-18, 24).

About roles
For the sake of orderly marriages then, God has ascribed the role of primary provider and head of the family to husbands. This is so that they can take responsibility for the ultimate oversight and care of the family, leaving their wives free to focus on their particular role of childrearing. For this reason, the role of wives is that of primary nurturer and helper. However, these roles are not absolute. Women are commended for working to provide for their families and managing their households under their husband’s oversight (Prov 31v10-31), whilst husbands are called to raise their children in the faith and serve their wives (Eph 5v25-6v4). The picture is of a wonderfully harmonious team in which the genders compliment rather than compete with one-another, agreeing how to best use their time and gifts to contribute to society and raise godly children, whilst having particular roles assigned so that wives are properly cared for and children flourish. 

Gender cannot be divorced from an understanding of these roles. Rather it is defined by them. In short, there are only two genders – male and female, which are evident in the biological differences necessary for humanity’s great tasks of filling and subduing the world and picturing God’s relationship with his people. Certainly, not all men or women will marry and so engage in these roles. And outside the family of the home and of the church all are free to follow any vocation that is not sinful. Nevertheless, because these tasks are the reason for humanity being created in two genders, the limit to two genders remains for all.

The cultural challenge today
At their most basic, these differences were pretty self-evident until the industrial revolution. What has changed since then is that technology has given men greater choice over their vocation. This has made work for many more a joy than burden, which understandably exacerbates any sense of drudgery their wives might feel in their particular role. At the same time birth-control has meant that women have not been so bound to child-bearing, whilst the diversification of labour has increased the amount of jobs women might engage in too. Moreover, in making people more self-sufficient we have become more individualistic. And this individualism lays great stress on being, doing and achieving whatever one wants in life, often irrespective of others or the wider community.

It is no great surprise that feminism appeared in this environment. It sought to free women from what was sometimes little more than domestic slavery, which women could not previously escape because of their dependence on the provision of men. Feminists recognized this could entail a sort of prostitution, where a woman has little choice but to be married off to a man who would pay her with his provision whilst requiring her sexual services and the raising of his children in return. Feminists wanted women to have equal opportunity to find their own path in life, without requiring them to marry and have children, and without limiting them in the job they might have. The advances of the modern era made all this possible.

It would be wrong to criticise feminism in its entirety, and certainly to criticise all with feminist sympathies. Indeed, where Christians failed to confront the oppression of women from the scriptures, we could perhaps say that God providentially used feminism to give them a much needed voice. Nevertheless, unless checked by scripture, you can immediately see the damage feminist assumptions can do. First, they can lead to a resenting of the God-given role of childrearing and of unborn children themselves. Pregnancy is seen as a way women can become enslaved to men or to domesticity. And so some feminists have strongly argued for a woman’s right to abort her children and leave her newborn children with others so that she can enter paid work as soon as she can. Second, feminist assumptions can lead to the undermining of marriage too. We’ve seen that marriage is intended to operate as a team of two where the wife does depend on her husband to provide so that she can devote herself to her responsibility in childrearing. Outraged at how this has been abused, some radical feminists have challenged the differences between men and women that are reflected in these roles, declared that marriage and the family should be eradicated, and commended same-sex relationships to avoid any sense of dependence between the sexes. (This is important background to the gay rights movement and its own attack on the traditional family.) Third, although there will be other causes, it is not hard to see how the assumptions of feminism can therefore lead to just the confusion over gender that we see today. With fewer people marrying or having children, more opting for careers rather than the roles inherent with marriage, and a general undermining of the biological difference between genders, people are more likely to consider that biological difference as malleable. Moreover, societal views of masculinity and femininity are then likely to be exaggerated as men and women look for other ways to mark their difference. And this may well lead those who do not fit these societal norms to question their gender. Furthermore, the breakdown of marriage, the lack of role models due to parental absence, and the confused portrayal of gender in society, must only confuse things further.

Of course, the abuse that feminism reacted to is a far cry from the biblical ideal, when rightly understood. In scripture women are commended for business, industry, and leadership in society (Prov 31v10-31, Acts 16v14, Jud 4v4), and to be loved and cherished by their husbands (Eph 5v22-32). Indeed, the many stipulations for fathers regarding their daughters and husbands with their wives were intended to protect women against being used, abused and discarded in the very ways that many women suffer today, having been told it is liberating to enter relationships with men without the protection of marriage commitments, societal pressure to keep them, or the oversight of parents.

Lessons for gender confusion
1)          We can see then that what people have started terming “gender” (“your personal sense of who you are”) cannot be divorced from “sex” (your “biology”). The two are actually one and the same. And there are and can only be two true genders.

2)          We must accept, however, that because of sin everyone is to some degree broken, confused and lacking in terms of gender as in all other areas. It should therefore be no surprise, if we experience feelings of confusion or alienation in this area, especially as we grow up in a particularly broken and confused society.

3)          We must feel great pity for the very few who due to the fractured nature of the created order are born “intersex” – ie. without a clear biological gender. They are perhaps like those Jesus taught were born as eunuchs and so unable to marry (Matt 19v12). They are likely to be deeply confused about their gender, and will need much support as they hopefully wait in Christ for resurrection in a perfected body. However, my understanding is that many if not all such people may have a clear chromosomal gender, with their bodily uncertainty down to hormonal issues. If so, an operation at a suitable point might be appropriate to bring the body inline with their innate gender.

4)          Those who identify with a different gender to their biological sex must be viewed differently. We must certainly feel great compassion for all who struggle with respect to their gender. But the fact that the bodies of these people do not display any problems with regard to determining gender means that their problem must lie within. And gender identity is formed in all sorts of complex ways as one grows up and is influenced by one’s family, society etc. But changing the gender of the body is therefore likely to make the struggle worse rather than better. Instead, what such people need is help in not basing their gender identity on past experiences or societal stereotypes, but on accepting their biological gender and seeking to become like Christ with the whole range of human characteristics. In this, they should also be discouraged from aligning themselves with the opposite sex in clothing and appearance.




[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html