New Taliban law removes all 10 aspects of freedom of religion

Reflections on Shavuot and Pentecost

Are you ready to stand firm?

Paul Luckraft reviews 'The Epic of Eden' by Sandra Richter (IVP Academic, 2008)

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘The Sinner’s Charter’ by Steve Maltz (SP Publishing, 2020)

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘Mount Sinai in Arabia’ by Joel Richardson (Winepress, 2019)

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘Restoration’ by D Thomas Lancaster (2016, First Fruits of Zion).

Frances Rabbitts reviews Samuel Burgess’ timely defence of Britain’s political heritage.

Mention the word ‘conservatism’ these days in the context of politics and many will automatically assume you are referring to the Conservative Party. The word may also trigger an adverse reaction, as it has gathered some negative connotations: unfettered greed, elitism, obstinate refusal to accept change.

In this timely, concise volume from Wilberforce Publications, Samuel Burgess pares away the vagaries and peculiarities of party politics from the much longer-standing (even ancient) political/philosophical tradition of conservatism, acknowledging where the former and the latter have coincided over the years, but also where they have parted company.

In so doing, Burgess ‘rediscovers’ conservatism as a rich heritage of principles and values with a huge amount to offer in modern-day Britain. His contention is that politics is a moral endeavour (being concerned with the bettering of individual, civic and national life) and that only conservatism is morally substantial enough to guide us in the days ahead.

A Valid Philosophy for Our Time

At 190 pages this is a relatively slim volume, but the prose is considered, eloquent and thought-provoking. Complex subjects are dealt with cogently, though it is by no means a light read.

Burgess starts by dispelling the myth that conservatism is just about preserving the status quo, unpacking its substantive principles, its historic roots in English common law and its debt to the ‘father’ of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, who is quoted regularly thereafter. Eight subsequent chapters consider matters of civic importance in Britain today, including the idea of the nation-state, the market, freedom under law, culture, religion, the environment and even the idea of beauty, showcasing in relation to each the virtues of a truly conservative approach.

Burgess does not provide comprehensive accounts of these subjects (or the book would be far longer than it is) but offers succinct outlines in accordance with his core argument. As such, this is a book that will start conversations more than finish them. But Burgess undoubtedly achieves his overall goal: to set conservatism back on the table as a valid philosophy for our time (and, presumably, to remind those who ally themselves with the ‘Conservative’ Party what they ought to be standing for).

Burgess ‘rediscovers’ conservatism as a rich heritage of principles and values with a huge amount to offer in modern-day Britain.

Refreshingly Constructive

In unpacking the goods of conservatism it is obviously necessary to highlight how and why other approaches have failed. Burgess strikes a good balance, not indulging in excessive debunking of philosophies like liberalism and socialism but letting the virtues of conservatism speak for themselves. As such, the book is a refreshingly constructive, uplifting read.

The beauty of conservatism, according to Burgess, is that it is not so much a grand political project as a common-sense set of principles, rooted in an objective view of reality and morality (i.e. truth really exists, as do objective standards of good and evil). These principles can be applied to the specifics of any issue or circumstance. Conservatism is therefore a creative, flexible philosophy which allows for society to develop according to the uniqueness of individual places and people – provided they remain rooted in the soil of morality. Conservatism is, according to Burgess, “a political expression of a belief in moral order” (p162).

Unlike liberalism and socialism, conservatism recognises that human nature contains both good and evil and seeks to harness this complex, messy moral reality for the betterment of society. This realism gives conservatism appeal to everyone, not just to Christians. However, throughout the book we catch glimpses of conservatism’s Christian roots – for instance its understanding that true freedom is not about license and permissiveness, but about deference to legitimate authority and flourishing within good moral boundaries.

As the chapters unfold, we discover that conservatism is a friend of gradual, organic change (rather than overnight revolution) and is innately social, recognising the importance of kinship and community. Indeed, we discover that conservatism has people and their best interests at its heart.

Because each chapter is relatively brief given the depth of the subject material, it would have been good to have some further reading recommended at chapter ends. In places, Burgess could also do more to connect his comments back into his main argument about conservatism, especially for readers without a grounding in political philosophy. But these criticisms are minor and do not detract from the overall worth of the book.

Unlike liberalism and socialism, conservatism recognises that human nature contains both good and evil and seeks to harness this complex, messy moral reality for the betterment of society.

High Stakes

Today, the stakes are high. Transnational governance threatens to supersede the nation-state, libertarian individualism is leading to community disintegration and aggressive secular liberalism is stifling freedom of speech. We desperately need to recover a more reasonable, positive, common-sense approach. More than this, we need to have the confidence to put morality and belief back at the heart of politics, recognising that this is the only route to social order and true flourishing.

These are complex issues, but Burgess provides a robust, hopeful defence of why conservatism’s framework for a flourishing society is unparalleled. Today, we seem intent on throwing away its hard-won benefits, accrued over centuries, and these will not be recouped overnight. Our challenge is not to recreate the past, however, but to learn from it and look to the future. The first step is to re-envision ourselves, strengthening our confidence in values which have been much derided and ‘deconstructed’ in recent years. In this, Burgess has done us all a great service.

Whether or not we can recover what has been lost without wholesale repentance and return to belief in God, Burgess leaves unanswered. Nevertheless, the book remains an empowering reminder that Christian beliefs birthed a rich political tradition in Britain with much to commend itself to our modern age. Conservative principles are grounded in timeless truths and will still be standing when all other ideologies have crumbled.

This book is a must-read for those in government, for anyone concerned about how to blend faith with politics and for all who seek a better understanding of how Judeo-Christianity has blessed our politics in the past and could yet do so again.

‘The Moral Case for Conservatism’ (2019, Wilberforce Publications, paperback, e-book) is available online for £10 (£5.49 on Kindle).

You may also be interested in Samuel Burgess’s first book:

‘Edmund Burke’s Battle with Liberalism’ by Samuel Burgess (2017, Wilberforce Publications)

The British people benefit from an extraordinary political heritage, but few know very much about it, or about the debt we owe to the faithful individuals who went before us and helped to create it. 18^th-Century Irish statesman Edmund Burke is one such giant, on whose shoulders we now stand.

In this, Samuel Burgess’s first book, we are treated to an in-depth look at the ‘father’ of modern conservatism and his political legacy. Edmund Burke sought to uphold a biblical approach to politics at a time when the tyranny and moral anarchy of the French Revolution were threatening to spill across the Channel into Britain, ideologically and physically.

Burke’s political defence of the realm was influential at the time, but his was also a prophetic voice. Though libertarianism was rejected in the 18^th Century as too radical, it enjoyed a resurgence in the late 20^th Century and now dominates our politics, media, language and culture, paving the way once again to coercion and authoritarianism.

Burke’s political defence of the realm was influential at the time, but his was also a prophetic voice.

In seven chapters, Burgess unpacks Burke’s Christian beliefs and how they shaped his approach to politics. As he goes, Burgess shows how unique the Christian conservative tradition is in its beliefs about humanity and the world and what it offers in an era of political turbulence and confusion.

In the latter part of the book, there is some similarity with material in ‘The Moral Case for Conservatism’, but the difference in focus between the two means that both books are still worthwhile purchases. ‘Edmund Burke’s Battle with Liberalism’ lays a good historical foundation for ‘The Moral Case for Conservatism’ and the books can be seen as companion volumes.

Burgess’s first book is perhaps a little less accessible and more academic than his second, but no less important. Apart from anything else, it is a solid encouragement that the path we tread today has been trodden before: that great men of faith have gone before us, battling the same powers, learning the same lessons and shining a light on the way forward which we would do well to heed. Edmund Burke is not a well-known name outside the realm of political theory, but it ought to be. We owe him much.

‘Edmund Burke’s Battle with Liberalism’ (180pp) is available from Amazon for £9.99 (paperback) or £4.99 (Kindle). Find out more on the Wilberforce Publications website.

Worship is not a substitute for obedience.

This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel says: “Go ahead, add your burnt offerings to your other offerings and eat the meat yourselves! For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

But they did not listen or pay attention, instead, they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They went backward and not forward. From the time your forefathers left Egypt until now, day after day, again and again I sent you my servants the prophets. But they did not listen to me or pay attention. They were stiffnecked and did more evil than their forefathers.” (Jeremiah 7:21-26)

This is another of Jeremiah’s sweeping statements condemning the official religion in Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoiakim and shortly before the Babylonian invasion of 598 BC. The positioning of this word in Jeremiah 7 is highly significant. It follows Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon and his declaration that God was actually going to destroy his own sanctuary, as he had done at Shiloh.

Jeremiah was told to tell the people that the message from God was: “I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim” (Jer 7:15). He then received a personal command to stop praying for the welfare of the nation because God was no longer prepared to turn a blind eye to what they were doing. God could see whole families indulging in the worship of Astarte, the goddess of fertility – and actually doing these things openly in the streets of Jerusalem!

These things were provoking the anger of the Lord, but his wrath was primarily turned upon the religious leaders of the nation – the Temple priests and prophets who were allowing such things to happen openly, in sight of the Temple, without rebuke!

The people were provoking God’s anger, but his wrath was primarily turned upon the religious leaders of the nation.

Call to Obedience

This word from Jeremiah is directed to the priests who were responsible for the daily morning and evening sacrifices in the Temple. They were told not to bother with these ritual sacrifices any more – they were wasting their time, because God would no longer heed their prayers and petitions on behalf of the nation. They might as well eat the meat for themselves rather than burn it on the altar as “a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the Lord by fire” (Ex 29:41).

The presenting of a regular daily offering at the Tent of Meeting was a command given to Moses (Ex 29:38-45; Num 28:11-13). This practice was still being observed when David became king over all Israel, even before he established Jerusalem as his capital. When the Ark was recaptured from the Philistines we read, “David left Zadok the priest and his fellow priests before the tabernacle of the Lord at the high place in Gibeon to present burnt offerings to the Lord on the altar of burnt offering regularly, morning and evening” (1 Chron 16:39). When Jerusalem became the capital of the nation, this daily offering was transferred to Solomon’s Temple.

In the reading we are studying today, God reminded Jeremiah that the central command he had given to Moses was a call for obedience. The First Commandment was that the people of Israel should have no other God than Yahweh their Lord. This was of supreme importance. Obedience to the teaching given to Moses was far more important than offering sacrifices. The sacrifices were acts of worship during which prayers and petitions were offered, but worship was not a substitute for obedience.

God reminded Jeremiah that the central command he had given to Moses was a call for obedience.

Meaningless Offerings

Jeremiah, in accordance with prophetic tradition in Israel, gave little importance to the ritual of sacrificial practices. Back in the 8^th Century, some 200 years earlier, Isaiah had begun his ministry with a devastating attack upon the whole sacrificial system:

The multitude of your sacrifices – what are they to me?” says the Lord. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals…Stop bringing meaningless offerings!…Even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen…Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed… (Isa 1:11-17)

In a similar vein, Amos lambasted the people in the northern Kingdom of Israel: “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them…Away with the noise of your songs!…But let justice roll like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:21-24).

Jeremiah said that there was a long history of the people failing to obey the commands of the Lord. He had sent them prophets to declare his word in every generation, ever since they left Egypt: “Day after day, again and again…But they did not listen to me or pay attention.” The people were doing just as their forefathers had done, relying upon the traditional ritual of religion carried out by the priests on behalf of the nation and thinking that they were thereby fulfilling the requirements of God.

The priests were at fault for not teaching the people that obedience to the commandments of the Lord was essential. They could not expect God to fulfil the promises of his covenant relationship with the nation unless this requirement of obedience to the Torah was fulfilled.

But the level of disobedience and refusal to listen to correction was so ingrained in the nation, due to it being institutionalised in their religion, that Jeremiah was told by God that neither the priests nor the people would listen to him. He was to say, “This is the nation that has not obeyed the Lord its God or responded to correction. Truth has perished; it has vanished from their lips” (Jer 7:28).

The priests were at fault for not teaching the people that obedience to the commandments of the Lord was essential.

True Worship

It is a basic biblical teaching in the prophetic tradition of Israel that worship, however loud and exuberant, does not absolve the worshippers from obedience to the teaching that God has given. This is an instruction that ought to be heeded today!

Faithful attendance at church and participation in worship on Sundays does not absolve us from ungodly behaviour on weekdays – especially in the denial of justice and compassion in our human relationships.

This prophetic tradition also applies to preachers and teachers and worship leaders today. It is no use turning up the volume on our sound system if the teaching we are giving is contrary to biblical truth! If truth has ‘vanished from our lips’, we may be sure that the Lord will be saying, “Away with your songs! Walk in all the ways I command you that it may go well with you.”

This article is part of a series on the life and ministry of the Prophet Jeremiah. Click here for previous instalments.

Life on the front line of a changing society.

Editorial introduction: With the new Government pledging a huge recruitment drive for the police, it is timely to ask what life is like for officers (especially Christians) policing in 21^st Century Britain. Interviewing a Christian police chaplain, Paul Luckraft finds out what it’s like to work on the front line of a changing society.

With many changes happening in Britain, and not always for the better, it is natural to assume that those working in front-line services are subject to new pressures and increasing burdens. Those who have been in such jobs for a considerable period may now find things are very different from when they started. How do they cope? And will their situation become more difficult as society continues to decline, morally and spiritually?

One vital sector of our public services is the police force (or, more properly nowadays, police ‘service’), with their dual function of care and control, of serving the public and their needs while maintaining the law of the land.

What is it like to be a Christian in modern policing? What problems do officers and their support teams face in this era of political correctness, diversity and cultural Marxism?

To find answers I talked to a chaplain in the Metropolitan Police Service, to whom I will refer as ‘J’. The picture I gained wasn’t as depressing as I had feared - nevertheless, the policeman’s lot can hardly be described as a totally happy one.

Growing Discontent

According to J, one significant area of discontent among officers, especially senior ones, is the lessening sense of professional ‘family’ within particular stations and boroughs. Cost-cutting has meant facilities such as canteens have been reduced and opportunities to share together are more limited. Officers no longer feel cared for, or that they have the time to develop closer relationships among themselves that will benefit them in their work.

Cost-cutting has meant shared facilities have been reduced and officers no longer feel cared for.

This is just one small way in which they feel less respected and valued – but there are others, J went on. Those above them, local and national politicians, make decisions which make their jobs more demanding, but perhaps even worse is the attitude of large portions of society which routinely see officers as racists, bigots and/or as corrupt. Compounding all this is the media which frequently judges them, highlighting complaints and running stories which show them in a bad light.

‘PC’ PCs

Moving to the topic of political correctness, J illuminated how this radical social force no longer allows for traditional policing approaches, which worked extremely well in the past but which would now be frowned upon. Contentious methods such as ‘stop and search’ have to be handled with extreme care to show fairness and balance. Even when the main suspects are clearly known, the police dare not be seen to show bias against the criminal. As a result, time is wasted in searching others in order to avoid charges of targeting certain groups.

In the past, J continued, older officers would mentor younger ones and train them in ways which they knew worked. This doesn’t happen any longer and creates a disconnection between age groups, which is frustrating for senior officers as they cannot pass on best practice. Instead, new recruits come from police colleges already ‘fully trained’, which really means being taught how to behave as ‘PC’ PCs.

J reflected that being the custodians of the nation’s laws is a difficult enough job in and of itself; but nowadays society seems to have its own ‘rules’, separate and distinct from the laws of the land. One obvious example is that of drug-taking. The law may say one thing, but if large numbers of people are gathering despite this to smoke cannabis (for instance), what should the response be? In one case, J opined, thousands occupied Hyde Park for this purpose. Although the event was policed, all the officers could do was watch on.

Restricting Freedoms

One main concern is how to police the new laws on hate speech. In some cases, the required response might be clear, but in general this area is fraught with difficulty, especially if preaching the Gospel is involved. How should a Christian policeman react to being told to arrest someone preaching on the street, or giving out a tract? J summed up the overall dilemma caused by the hate laws succinctly: “Freedoms are being restricted in the name of freedom”.

According to J, the hate laws can be summarised as freedoms being restricted in the name of freedom.

It was pleasing to hear that at present, J finds no problems in representing the Christian faith within the Met itself. Good relations prevail with the top commanding officers who are always glad of his input and have an open door for him. Opportunities for J to speak and pray are regular, including at training days where it might be thought more problematic. Although individual officers may be less than enthusiastic, in general there is little opposition and many are glad of the listening ear and support that a Christian chaplain can bring.

Bettering Society

The goal of every police officer is to make society a better place. But today it is difficult to answer precisely how this ought to be done, especially in a way that all officers could agree with.
Speaking with J inspired and reminded me that as Christians, we should remain grateful for and supportive of our police officers, praying for them and encouraging any that we know personally, pointing them in the direction of the only true Way in which British society can genuinely be transformed for the better.

Find out more about how to encourage and support Christians in the police by connecting with the Christian Police Association.