A warning sign to the nation.

Carillion’s collapse is not only a disaster for its 43,000 employees but a blow to the whole national economy, with up to 30,000 businesses affected in Carillion’s wider network. Of course, all our politicians have gone into ‘blame game’ mode.

The only MPs who can claim to be guiltless of the policy that led to this Private Finance Initiative (PFI) are those on the far left who opposed this dangerous venture into the state trying to get its public services on the cheap.

The short answer is – it is not possible! There is no such thing as free money.

PFI was an idea generated in John Major’s Government but implemented when Gordon Brown was in charge of the Treasury in Tony Blair’s New Labour Government. So, both our main political parties have egg on their faces for the monstrous folly that has put millions of pounds into the pockets of venture capitalists at the expense of the British taxpayer.

Reckless Debt

At a time when interest rates were high and the Government wished to keep borrowing to a minimum it must have seemed attractive to let private investors put up the capital for big construction projects and to delay purchase of the assets over a period of many years. But buying anything on the ‘never-never’ only delays the pain. We are now told that projects valued at £60 billion are costing the British taxpayer £199 billion.

Both our main political parties have egg on their faces for this monstrous folly

It seems almost beyond belief that our politicians could be so incredibly naive to put our hospitals and schools in the hands of these greedy rogues, who have lined their own pockets at public expense. In simple terms, the Government handed out contracts for the building of hospitals and schools paid for largely by foreign investors, who have leased them back to the Government at exorbitant rates of interest in conditions that make vast profits for the investors.

Even after Carillion had issued ‘profits warnings’ indicating that it was in financial difficulties, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling awarded them a contract on part of the High-Speed Rail (HS2) construction.

Carillion have been in trouble for a long time but instead of following a policy of clearing their debts on each project before moving onto the next, they recklessly increased their debts in a kind of commercial Ponzi scheme, by taking on more contracts to help pay off the interest on earlier commitments. Eventually the point was reached where their debt mountain became so massive, and the profits had all been squirrelled away by greedy management, that it became impossible to pay off the debts and the banks would not lend any more.

Day of Reckoning

This has all the feel of the darker side of capitalism and was probably the kind of operation that Marx had in mind when he said that capitalism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I’m not making a case for Marxism, but simply pointing out that there were some things that he got right.

The fundamental weakness of Marxism lies in its dogma of ‘economic determinism’ which sees all human beings as products of their environment. All thought thereby becomes conditioned by matter, because it is a product of matter in motion, which philosophically sets aside the whole notion of human accountability.

It is beyond belief that our politicians put our hospitals and schools in the hands of these greedy rogues, who have lined their own pockets at public expense.

It was this conviction of human accountability to God that was the driving force behind the ministry exercised by the prophets of Israel recorded in the Bible. Listen to this from the Prophet Amos:

You hate the one who reproves in court and despise him who tells the truth. You trample on the poor…You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts. (Amos 5:10-12)

Amos then goes on to tell the leaders of the nation who are eagerly awaiting the Day of the Lord that it will be a day of darkness not light, because God is a God of truth and justice who holds human beings accountable for their actions.

It is this accountability to a higher authority that is missing in our secular humanist society today. The very existence of these concepts of truth and justice depend upon our recognition of the God of Creation who built these values into the fabric of the universe. When we take God out of the equation we actually destroy the whole structure of society because there are no ultimate values or accountability. Without God we human beings are on our own to make up our own rules that suit our particular needs at the time.

The Underlying Problem

But we live in a moral universe that we ignore at our peril, as the Carillion debacle vividly portrays. The big question now is whether or not our political masters will have the courage not only to take responsibility for clearing up the mess of the disastrous policy of former Governments, but to recognise the reason why the nation is having to bear the huge cost of this folly.

We live in a moral universe that we ignore at our peril.

Will we recognise that by departing from the ‘gold standard’ of the word of God we have brought all this trouble upon ourselves? And will we come humbly before God seeking his ways that lead to blessing and prosperity?

It may be that God has allowed the Carillion economic disaster to come upon us as a warning sign to the nation that all is not well; and that unless we face up to the bigger moral and spiritual problems in the nation we will never get the economy right or solve the nation’s social problems.

Charlie Gard and the sanctity of life debate.

What is life? When does it begin? When should it end?

Should we keep on life support those who have severely impaired faculties and quality of life?

Great Ormond Street Hospital is seeking to switch off the life support of critically ill baby Charlie Gard so that he may “die with dignity”, a phrase used by euthanasia supporters. However, this week Professor Michio Hirano, an expert in mitochondrial disease, flew in from the US to assess Charlie’s case and has said that a brain scan does not show evidence of irreversible damage from Charlie's rare genetic condition.¹ In recent hours the US Congress has granted Charlie and family permanent residence in the States if they wish to pursue Hirano's experimental treatment.²

Incidentally, it was revealed this week that Victoria Butler-Cole, the lawyer representing Charlie’s state-appointed guardian, heads a charity that supports assisted dying.³ So, has his case had a fair hearing?

In the same week that Charlie Gard’s case is being re-assessed, the High Court is hearing the legal challenge of a British man with motor neurone disease, dreading the progression of the disease and ‘locked-in’ syndrome, who wants to be granted a medically-assisted death.⁴

How should a Christian respond to distressing cases such as these, while staying faithful to the Bible’s teaching?

The answer is that we need to take a step back from the unsteady ground of human debate and plant our feet on the solid rock that is God’s word.

The True Value of Life

Human life is valuable not because of its quality, but because we are made in God’s image:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. (Genesis 9:6)

From conception to final breath, human life is valuable and no one has the right to destroy it wilfully: “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13).

How should a Christian respond to distressing cases such as Charlie Gard’s, while staying faithful to the Bible’s teaching?

We are created in God’s image, but we are also sinners who mar that image within us. Both our sinful nature and our awareness of the divine are present from conception:

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place. (Ps 51:5-6)

God also foreknows us: Jeremiah was told,

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (Jer 1:5)

If we destroy life, we destroy God’s destiny and purpose for individuals and nations.

Jacob, Esau, Samson and Jesus himself were all described as beings of destiny and purpose from conception. Jesus was “God with us” from conception. He did not become divine at a later date.⁵

Logically, how could it be any other way? At what arbitrary point (which could vary between individuals) do we say a life in the womb passes the ‘value’ or ‘potential’ test?⁶

It may be the influence of Greek thought that has led us away from biblical truth and allowed us to draw distinctions between viable collections of physical cells and human life with potential for growth and personality. Greek philosophy teaches the separation of body and soul, whereas the Bible teaches that man is a nefesh, a “living being” (Gen 2:7), inextricably body and soul from the point of creation.

In fact, the Hebrew word nefesh is commonly translated as ‘soul’. Similarly, in English, an older use of the word soul implies rescue of the complete person, body and soul (as in SOS or Save Our Souls).

We need to take a step back from the unsteady ground of human debate and plant our feet on the solid rock that is God’s word.

Biblical Principles of Love and Protection

We accept that the Bible teaches us to care for our fellow man, so how can we sanction neglect or harm to the most vulnerable - those who cannot speak?

“Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law” (Rom 13:10). In other words, the whole of God’s Law (the Torah) is based on love and protection. Indeed, God’s law is summed up as: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” (a combination of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18).

Jesus told a story to epitomise that ‘royal law’, where a man treats a stranger’s medical emergency and pays for a form of hospital care.⁷ Helping the helpless and vulnerable, especially the stranger (without rights or voice), is a fundamental biblical principle: the sin of Sodom was not simply moral, rather, the residents outraged biblical decency by seeking to abuse and deny hospitality to strangers.⁸

It has been pointed out that the most inhospitable and dangerous place for any human being in today’s world is the womb. The place which should provide the utmost protection and care has become a grave for millions of human beings. Our end-of-life care centres are in danger of becoming similarly precarious places.

Trusting God’s Sovereignty

God’s word is absolute and we have to stand on its principles of absolute, divinely-revealed truth. Those who argue for assisted dying do so from a position of relative truth and situational ethics, seeking to extract overriding principles by pleading from the circumstances of individual sufferers. Indeed, it is with heart-wrenching personal cases that the media is redirecting the moral values of the nation away from God-given certainties.

Mature Christians know that they cannot exercise judgment based on relative truth and transitorily distressing and emotionally charged circumstances. Believers must stand on God’s promises and trust him to be the Sovereign Lord of all situations, even if upholding his principles becomes costly or difficult.

Believers must stand on God’s promises and trust him to be the Sovereign Lord, even if upholding his principles becomes costly.

Do we trust the Lord enough to allow him to govern all aspects of human suffering, while at the same time doing what we can to alleviate suffering and maintain life?

Keeping Charlie Gard on life support and allowing his parents to seek all possible treatment is biblically correct. By withdrawing life support, the medical team at GOSH would not be doing all they can to maintain life (which most doctors have sworn to do⁹). It would also be an unpleasant, slow way for the child to die and is effectively euthanasia because death is being chosen over life. If man possesses the power to sustain and treat him, then morally and scripturally, medics are obliged to exercise that ability.

If we believe that God is sovereign over life and death, then he can take the child to be with him at any point, whether on or off life support. If we think we must help God along by withdrawing life support, we are saying that God cannot take (or heal) the child unless we remove care. That implies that man is sovereign over life and death.

The Father’s Sacrificial Love

Just as human parents possess the unconditional love that should guide and decide their child’s treatment (unless their choices proceed from cruelty or conclusively injurious motives), so our Father God through his perfect love has the ultimate right to decide whether we live or die.

When we say that man should decide whether man lives or dies, we are denying that we have a Creator and a loving Heavenly Father, who knit us together in our mothers’ womb (Ps 139:13) and who demonstrated his love with the costliest sacrifice he could make.

When we say that unborn children and the seriously impaired (i.e. the voiceless) should be denied life or left to die, we should remember that God demonstrated his love when we too were helpless and vulnerable strangers to his promises (Eph 2:12, 19) in an inhospitable world: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Messiah died for us” (Rom 5:8).

Who should decide how our lives should begin and end? Surely the One who created us and laid down his own life for us.

References

1 Mendick, R. Charlie Gard's parents angry that baby's lawyer is head of charity that backs assisted dying. The Telegraph, 18 July 2017.

2 Forster, K. Charlie Gard granted permanent residence in US by Congress 'to fly to America for treatment'. The Independent, 20 July 2017.

3 See 1.

4 Walsh, F. Terminally ill man Noel Conway in right-to-die fight. BBC News, 17 July 2017.

5 References: Genesis 25:21-26; Judges 13:1-7; Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:39-45.

6 For an excellent study on this topic, see The Christian Institute’s ‘When does human life begin?’ by Dr John R Ling in their Salt and Light series.

7 The Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25-37.

8 Genesis 19:1-29.

9 “Medical students usually take an oath when they graduate but there is no standard approach across the UK.” Oxtoby, K. Is the Hippocratic oath still relevant to practising doctors today? BMJ, 14 December 2016.