A denial of God’s sovereignty

Church silence has given voice to extremists

Can humanity create heaven on earth?

Truth suppressed as few speak up for the unborn

George Floyd’s funeral lifted up the name of Jesus

Running with perseverance the race set before us

In order to build up a people of faith, God has to do some stripping away.

Why is the joker leading the pack?

To the despair of my wife and me, our middle daughter, when she was at primary school, used to invite all the naughty boys in her class to her birthday party. We took all necessary precautions of removing vulnerable artefacts but they were usually riotous events! We survived these birthday celebrations with minimum damage (apart from the odd broken window) and usually the household returned to normality after an intensive clear-up.

Reflecting upon these annual hijinks I became convinced that there is something in our human nature that likes living dangerously – flirting with risk, enjoying adventure tinged with the threat of the unknown.

It’s what I now call the ‘Boris Factor’, because I believe it accounts for the popularity of the front-runner in the Conservative Party’s race for our next Prime Minister – Boris Johnson. His popularity in the country, despite his well-publicised imperfections, is quite remarkable.

Promises, Promises

I cannot claim to know Boris very well, although I have met him a few times. On one occasion when he was canvassing support for his first term as Mayor of London, I spent two hours alone with him. His team had been chasing me around London for several months, keen to exploit my links with African-Caribbean community and church leaders. They coveted the black vote in inner-city boroughs, but I was not keen to be involved in a political campaign.

And then there were six: the Tory leadership hopefuls. Photo: AP/Press Association ImagesEventually I agreed to a meeting with Boris, provided I could talk about the special needs in these communities. We had a very good and frank conversation, particularly on what he would do with issues such as guns, drugs and knife crime. I was even able to quiz him on his personal faith (with dubious results!). After receiving a lot of promises I subsequently helped to bring some 80 leaders to meet with him, although I have to say that he did not keep his promises once he was in power.

I was nevertheless impressed by the way he addressed the black leaders using a mixture of humour and serious social policy strategy, while also acknowledging their particular community needs. He is an excellent communicator which probably accounts for his popularity in the country across widely different communities. But it is still surprising that so many are willing to overlook his blunders and alleged moral deficiencies and take the risk of making him Prime Minister.

There is something in our human nature that likes living dangerously – flirting with risk, enjoying adventure tinged with the threat of the unknown.

No Discernment

Why is this? Is it like the childhood fascination with the naughty boy? Do we like to take a risk and go for the charisma factor rather than the drab, boring, safe, pinstripe type of politician? The country certainly fell in love with Tony Blair as an exciting contrast to John Major, though the Blair factor only lasted a few years.

Public opinion, of course, is notoriously fickle, but it is surely surprising that there are some characters whose misbehaviours will be overlooked and who will be supported even though people know it is a risk. There is a telling statement made by the Prophet Jeremiah during the reign of the notoriously immoral King Jehoiakim in Jerusalem in the late 6^th Century BC. Jeremiah was having one of his prayer-time conversations with God and reporting on the state of the nation. He said “A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land! The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way” (Jer 5:30-31).

Jeremiah was used to false prophets promising “Peace! Peace!” when the Lord was saying “There is no Peace!”. He was constantly countering the lies of these popular prophets who told the people there was nothing to worry about in the rumours that the Babylonian army was on the march. They said that no enemy would ever get into Jerusalem, because God would defend the city.

The priests confirmed the lies of the prophets and instead of rightly teaching the people and giving judgments in accord with the teaching given by God to Moses, they made up their own rules and their own interpretations of the word of God. Sadly, the people had no discernment; they loved things as they were – lies and deception were quite acceptable to them.

In Jeremiah’s day, the people had no discernment; lies and deception were quite acceptable to them.

Self-interest vs. Righteousness

Once the word of God is discarded, anything becomes acceptable. This is the situation in Britain today. The public are disgusted with the antics of the politicians in recent months: they have lost trust in their MPs, who have been seen on TV day after day arguing but never agreeing on anything. The business of governing the country seems to have been grossly neglected while Brexit issues have dominated everything. People of all political leanings want resolution. They also want a leader who will tell them what they want to hear, to make them feel comfortable, just like the people in Jeremiah’s day before disaster befell Jerusalem!

The public are looking for a strong leader and there are few outstanding characters on either side of the House. This is why Boris is very likely to be chosen as the next Prime Minister, despite the reservations of discerning people.

Conservative MPs are well aware of the unpopularity that their Party has suffered through three years of weak leadership under Theresa May, whose stubbornness was not matched with political skill. This is where the ‘Boris Factor’ may influence those MPs who have no love for him, but are still willing to vote for him: he is widely regarded as the only one who can both hold Nigel Farage at bay and defeat Jeremy Corbyn. Under these circumstances self-interest takes precedence over righteousness, especially when MPs know that the public have long ago discarded values of righteousness.

People want a strong leader who will tell them what they want to hear, to make them feel comfortable.

Prospects for Britain

Will Britain get a Prime Minister who is able to exercise righteous government? Certainly, mature Christians know that Britain does not deserve godly government and there are many signs that we are a nation already under judgment. But God is merciful and I believe he still has a purpose for Britain. Could he use Boris? Of course he could! God used Cyrus to do his will and bless his people even though Cyrus did not even know the name of the Lord. But is it God’s intention to bless the nation, or to allow us bring judgment upon ourselves?

Boris at least professes a faith in God, but is that enough to provide Britain with a God-fearing Government? If the Conservative Party installs Boris and his partner in No. 10, will he lead a Government that can restore standards of righteousness in the nation?

MJR exposes a root cause of violent crime in the capital.

The publicity surrounding the rising incidences of knife crime on the streets of London, which has brought about the tragic deaths of 50 (mostly young) people since the start of the year, has led to much questioning and heart-searching about causes.

The Movement for Justice and Reconciliation (MJR) believes that these are rooted in the legacies of the past. In 2019 MJR will be sailing a replica slave-ship around the UK to bring this legacy to the attention of the public.

Unacknowledged Injustice

While not condoning or excusing knife crimes, MJR wants the general public to be aware that these events are not isolated, and that they cannot be simply explained away as ‘criminality’. For them to be dealt with, they and their mostly young perpetrators need to be understood: and that means looking into context.

We believe this context includes issues of historic cultural legacy, where particular pre-dispositions or mind-sets have been passed down through the generations unseen.

Chair of MJR, Rev Alton Bell, said: “An increasing body of academic research is showing that certain negative behavioural symptoms manifesting in modern society can be traced back in our history to the twin oppressions of colonial slavery and industrial exploitation. These symptoms can include violence such as is being currently witnessed on our streets.”

In 2019 MJR will be sailing a replica slave-ship around the UK to bring the legacy of slavery to the attention of the public.

Wide-Reaching Implications

For those of our communities descended from slaves these legacy issues can include personal problems with identity and belonging but, importantly, the legacy problem is also far more wide-reaching, even systemic.

The racist attitudes – structural, organisational and personal – with which our wider society struggles, and which result in black people being far more likely to be poor or in the prison system, can also be shown to be part of this legacy. The fact that it remains largely unacknowledged, let alone addressed, is a massive injustice.

MJR trustee Paul Keeble said: “Our historical amnesia about the exploitation of African slaves that helped make this country rich, has been an attempt to sweep an injustice under the carpet, but it has just left a huge lump that we keep tripping over as a society. Until we admit it is there and seek to address it, these legacy-related tragedies will continue. We cannot simply ‘move on’.”

Raising Public Awareness

In an attempt to bring the issues of legacy to wider public attention, in the summer of 2019 MJR will be sailing a replica slave-ship, called the ‘Zong’, to a number of key ports with associations with the slave trade.

Through on-board and dockside exhibitions, MJR will seek to inform people about the brutality of slavery and the human cost of the Industrial Revolution that has benefitted us all.

Notes

1. The Movement for Justice and Reconciliation is a registered charity, no. 1161441. More information on the MJR website, or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
   
2. The original ‘Zong’ was infamous for the owners claiming on their insurance for the loss of ‘property’ after 133 slaves were thrown overboard when the ship had apparently got into difficulties.
   
3. The 2019 Zong tour schedule is currently being finalised and is subject to confirmation of funding. Ports of call being prepared include Plymouth, Scilly Isles, Bristol, Ilfracombe, Liverpool, Manchester, Whitehaven, Lancaster.

Why are we often so different?

In response to Linda Louis-vanReed’s recent article ‘The War on Trump’, Jock Stein muses on the contrasts between American and British attitudes to life and liberty.

In earlier life I had an American colleague who, domiciled in Scotland, heroically adopted three children from Devon. The oldest had an inherited genetic condition and suffered from depression as an adult. Last year, living on his own in California, he took his own life – but not before seeking help from three hospitals who all refused him admission because he had an insurance card called ‘Obama Care’.

The hospitals all refused to use the Obama Care card because they had been purchased by large hospital conglomerates, who wished to pursue more expensive insurance options.

American Christians have a record second to none in dedicated missionary and humanitarian engagement. But it has always puzzled me why their attitudes to healthcare provision, as well as to other political issues, are often so different from ours in Britain. If it were a matter of Christians thinking differently from others, I would expect and understand that – but my impression is that these attitudes represent the majority of Christians as well as Americans in general.

This article is an attempt to explain why this may be the case; it draws upon conversations with Americans as well as past reading, but I am open to correction.

1 Separation of Church and State

The Declaration of Independence is premised on belief in God. But because the American colonies saw church affiliation as directed by the attitude of the reigning monarch (rather than based on theological principles) they decided to allow for a separation of Church and State, hoping that this would make differences between denominations less problematic. Indeed, America was big enough to allow what missionaries called a ‘principle of comity’, with some States being mainly Presbyterian, others Baptist and so on.

Those who signed the Declaration never intended this separation to rule God out of public life. They just wanted to avoid the ‘establishment’ model being replicated in America, so that Christians (especially Non-conformists) would have a freedom they had not enjoyed in Britain. This has resulted in thousands of denominations freely proliferating.

On the one hand, this has allowed a freedom of theological inquiry which is non-aligned to political identity. On the other hand, it has inevitably led to the emergence of ‘tribal’ political identities, with politicians courting ‘the Christian vote’, just as Britain has had ‘the Non-conformist vote’ and ‘the Catholic vote’.

Those who signed the Declaration of Independence never intended the separation of church from state to rule God out of public life.

Since the Constitution does not actually name God, in the 20^th Century atheists began to argue more strongly not just to keep church out of state business, but to keep God and the Bible out of it too. Abortion and religious education in schools became crunch issues. While much the same kind of situation has now been reached in Britain by a different route, nevertheless here there is not the same stark gap between faith and public life that exists in the USA.

For example, take the polarisation between Christianity and science. In the USA, believing scientists such as Francis Collins (who cracked the human genome) have to tread very carefully around this issue when they write (as Collins does in his latest book The Language of God, which includes his testimony), despite the fact that 70% of US scientists across the full spectrum of disciplines identify as being ‘people of faith’ (Christian or otherwise). In the UK, there has been a far greater historic acceptance of faith and science rubbing along together.

This modern American attitude to separation – keep faith out of public life – seems to have embraced aspects of service also, feeding the arguments (outlined below) that welfare and healthcare are private matters - the responsibilities of individuals and churches, rather than the state.

2 The Formation of American Identity

The century leading up to the First World War did a lot to found American values. It was a Cowboys-and-Indians century in which Americans drove the frontier westward, with a belief (parallel to the spirit of British Empire) that the United States had a destiny to subdue the entire continent in the name of God.

A nation of self-made people was in the process of forming its own identity, especially after the Civil War, which left the country shaken and wounded. During this century, the steel magnate and self-made multi-millionaire Andrew Carnegie wrote a book called The Gospel of Wealth. In it, he argued that economic inequalities then emerging in American society should be tackled by the wealthy upper class, who should put their hard-earned millions to good use, engaging in thoughtful, responsible philanthropy.

A sense of individual responsibility came to characterise white American society and its Christianity.

This sense of individual responsibility came to characterise white American society and its Christianity, while it was black people who began to identify the Gospel communally – i.e. with a people and a race.¹ This contrast between individual and communal aspects of Christianity is expanded later.

Both Britain and the US have struggled to work through their race issues, but in Britain the work of those like ‘the Clapham Sect’ extended far beyond slavery into other social issues, and eventually Christians and non-Christians formed a consensus to support ‘the welfare state’ after the Second World War, which included the provision of social care. The same did not happen in USA.²

3 Individual and Social Provision of Care

The Old Testament teaches that God’s justice and care for the poor does require some social provision, not just individual charity (e.g. Lev 25). Similarly, the New Testament teaches that equity cannot be left simply to the goodwill of individuals (e.g. 2 Cor 8:13-14). This has often been reflected in the teaching of Christian leaders – for example, Calvin’s concern for his neighbour led him to support low interest rates and a city-sponsored job creation programme.

The theological underpinning of this comes from the biblical idea that each individual human being is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26) and is in need of rescue from sin through the coming of Christ and his sacrifice (John 1: 14, 29). But we also see (e.g. in Hebrews 2:5-10) a social or corporate focus – Jesus taking on humankind as a whole and dying, once for all, on the cross.

That is why the early Church Fathers described the incarnation as having both an individual side - the Lord coming to earth as a specific individual (enhypostasia in Greek) – and a corporate side - the Son identifying with humanity by taking on human nature (anhypostasia). And it is why the illustration of the Church as the Body of Christ – one body with many parts – is so powerful.

In other words, both the social and the individual matter when it comes to salvation, and this affects how we see the Gospel impacting society. My impression is that Christians in Europe, perhaps more influenced by Calvin, have taken on both these aspects of our salvation, the corporate aspect which lends itself to socialism, and the individual aspect, favourable to capitalism. This has led (all told) to a centrist economic position incorporating aspects of both in the provision of social welfare, but without the exclusion of charity.

Both the communal and the individual matter when it comes to salvation – and this affects how we see the Gospel impacting society.

In the US, it is the individual emphasis which has largely prevailed, while socialism has often been identified with communism (seen as the great rival of the American way of life, especially since the McCarthy era), and so rejected.³

In Britain the founder of the Labour Party (Keir Hardy) was a Christian; and early Trade Union branches, especially in Wales, were known as ‘chapels’. While of course many Christians held other political views, socialism was respected in Britain and found political expression in a way that did not occur in the States. The US Democratic Party had very different roots.

Final Thought: How Far is Grace ‘Unconditional’?

Healthcare is expensive, and understandably all governments struggle to put a cap on cost in one way or another, especially in ageing societies like Britain and the US. Both countries continue to debate this.

Although the contexts are very different, there is one question about attitudes which both societies face: do you help the poor regardless, or only the ‘deserving’ poor? And – to pick up the story I began with – do people really have to be wealthy enough to afford a certain level of health insurance before they qualify for assistance?

In other words, should the State set ‘conditions’ for the receipt of benefits, and if so, what conditions should it set? This may be directed by cost, but it is also a moral dilemma. Responses on each side of the pond will, at least in part, reflect the cultural differences outlined above.

Christians face this with regard to their own giving: do you help the poor, whether they deserve it or not - whether they belong to your group or not? Or do you limit generosity to ‘those and such as those’? In Roman times, the Emperor Julian used to complain how Christians supported pagan poor as well as their own, even though they would also have known Paul’s priority expressed in Galatians 6:10. And beyond the Church, is ‘charity’ only a private and individual concern, or is taxation and welfare a proper concern of ‘charity’?

In the days of the New Testament, Christians had to work out these issues within a minority group of believers – and in many respects we are now back where they were then. But the laws of Western nations were drawn up when Christians were at least nominally in a majority.⁴ Our social and political witness does, I think, require us to put these questions on a wider canvas, while we still retain the freedom to do so.

References

1 The formation of this ‘evangelical identity’ is well documented (see for example George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 1980, OUP).

2 A recent interesting book which explores the history of these ideas is by the American writer Marilynne Robinson, The Givenness of Things (2016, Picador).

3 See Bob Goudzwaard, Capitalism and Progress: a Diagnosis of Western Society (1979, Wedge Pub. Foundation).

4 See The Evolution of the West, by Nick Spencer (2016, SPCK), Research Director of Theos.