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.

Britain continues to abandon its biblical heritage.

A dysfunctional House of Commons voted in Westminster this week to impose same-sex marriage and abortion upon the people of Northern Ireland – the only part of the United Kingdom that respects biblical teaching on these issues. MPs, aided and abetted by a rebellious Speaker of the House, took advantage of the fact that Britain at present is effectively without a fully functioning Government, to pass amendments to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill.

The amendments threaten to impose LGBTQ demands upon the people of Ulster by 21 October this year unless the Stormont Government has been reinstated. The DUP, who are the main representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, and the only Bible-believing political party in the British Parliament, strongly opposed the measures, but they were nevertheless approved by large majorities.

Sinn Fein (who refuse to take their Westminster seats), the political party with whom the DUP have to cooperate if the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be reactivated, immediately expressed approval of the Westminster votes, which is unlikely to make it easier for Stormont to rise from the ashes after 2 ½ years of dormancy. The future for Northern Ireland is further complicated by Brexit and the failure to agree a solution to Irish border issues in the event of Britain leaving the European Union.

The Shaking of the Political Scene

The political scene in the United Kingdom is also struggling to cope with strong opposition to Brexit from Scotland, and growing demands from the SNP for another Scottish Referendum, with the threat of breaking up the Union. Adding all these political tensions together presents a graphic scene of dysfunction over the whole of the United Kingdom where we have a powerless Prime Minister with only days to run and two men vying to be the next leader of the Conservative Party, neither of whom appear to have the outstanding qualities required to unite the nation in a time of crisis.

Adding all the political tensions together presents a graphic scene of dysfunction over the whole of the United Kingdom.

But what about the official Opposition? The most shocking revelations of the week came in the BBC Panorama programme investigating the rise of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party since the advent of the Corbyn leadership. The evidence all came back inexorably to Corbyn himself and his personal hostility to Israel and ambivalent attitude towards Jews. Clearly the Labour Party itself is falling apart and, like the rest of the House of Commons, it is utterly dysfunctional and unfit to be Her Majesty’s Opposition at a critical time in the nation’s history.

See Credits

Another big story of the week has been the unpatriotic action of a Sunday newspaper in publishing leaked reports from the British Ambassador in Washington that have done immense harm to Anglo-American relationships resulting in the Ambassador’s resignation. Boris Johnson’s hesitation in giving unqualified support to the Ambassador in his televised leadership encounter was quite understandable. The subject is far too sensitive for an off-the-cuff verdict. I’ve no doubt that Sir Kim Darroch’s assessment of the dysfunctionality of the Trump Administration is accurate. But the difference between the White House and the Westminster Parliament is simply that Westminster has been exposed to the world whereas Washington has so far been more successful in covering any cracks.

Hypocrisy and Rebellion

But perhaps an even more significant story of the week has been the intervention of Sir John Major saying he would take court action to stop Parliament being prorogued in order to achieve Brexit by the end of October. Why should we listen to the opinions of a man who strongly campaigned to remain in the EU and was not renowned for his moral integrity?

The plain fact is we have a Parliament that is refusing to honour the wishes of the nation as expressed in the 2016 Referendum to leave the European Union. Parliament is in rebellion against the will of the nation and has been totally unable to find collective agreement on any issue concerning Brexit. It has therefore proved itself to be utterly dysfunctional and unable to provide effective government of the nation. Surely such a parliament should be prorogued if that is the only way to achieve the will of the people – that is democracy!

Parliament is in rebellion against the will of the nation.

I went to a meeting of the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group in the House of Commons on Wednesday. The whole of Parliament Square was choked with hundreds of taxis on strike blocking the traffic, and protest groups with all their different messages. It really was a pathetic scene of confusion matching the scene inside Parliament and indeed the condition of the buildings themselves with an abundance of scaffolding!

The Fall of the Empire

Looking back at history it is astonishing to think that the nation at the head of the British Empire, upon which the sun never set, has now come to this pathetic situation where our Parliament is in greater disarray than many banana states, and even the pound is almost at the lowest ebb it has ever been. We are not making a case for colonialism, but simply highlighting the obvious fall in the influence of the nation on the world stage. How are the mighty fallen! What has brought Great Britain to this critical state?

There is only one answer to this question. It is there, written large in the history of the nation – the abandoning of the Judaeo-Christian biblical heritage that was established by our forefathers and for which millions of young men gave their lives to preserve in two world wars during the last century.

The abandoning of its Judaeo-Christian biblical heritage has brought Great Britain to a critical state today.

I lived through one of those wars – as a child I remember the bombing, the bloodshed and the hardship – we even had to grow our own food and keep hens in the back garden – but we were leaner and healthier then than we are today with our fast-food culture and our overindulgence.

Hope in Humility

In wartime we were united in faith: we were a praying nation, and we were fighting to uphold standards of righteousness and truth. Today, we have a rebellious generation that does not even know the meaning of truth. As Jesus said: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand” (Matt 13:13). We have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Rom 1:25).

Is there any hope? As a patriot I would love to be able to answer that affirmatively! But, after many years of studying the Bible and the history of God’s dealings with his covenant people Israel, I have to say that the only hope for the nation lies in repentance and turning back to the truth. For Israel, it only came after the tragedy of exile in Babylon, so it may be that we have to experience tragedy befalling Britain before eyes are open and people cry out, “O God, what has gone wrong?” Then, there can be a spiritual awakening transforming the nation and its fortunes.

The only hope for the nation lies in repentance and turning back to the truth.

The words of the Prophet Joel offer hope even in a desperate situation: “Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the Lord your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity. Who knows? He may turn and relent and leave behind a blessing” (Joel 2:13-14).

Debates over Brexit are revealing about the state of our hearts.

In Matthew 8:28-34 we read how Jesus freed two men of strong demon possession. Since this resulted in a substantial financial loss for the owners of a herd of swine that was present, we are told that the whole town beseeched the Son of God to leave their region. It is a sad but classic proof of why Jesus said that we cannot serve both God and money (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13).

Somehow, this reminds us of the whole Brexit issue. This is because politics, the banking and corporate sectors, as well as the media, counterweight Britain’s prospective freedom from the EU with forecasts of a heavy economic loss. It’s easy, therefore, for people to get distracted from the more important spiritual and moral issues.

From a secular point of view, Britain must decide whether it really wants to leave an alleged safe haven and embark on an unknown path. In this framing of the argument, fear is made the driving force. From a biblical point of view, Britain must decide whether it wants to be free from political dictate or keep handing over its freedoms for the 'promise' of financial stability. Personal conviction is the motivating force here.

For all that, Brexit and its economic consequences are just fruits of a more foundational issue that believers, and indeed the whole nation, need to deal with: the question of whom they serve.

Britain must decide whether it wants to be free from political dictate or keep handing over its freedoms for the 'promise' of financial stability.

God or Money?

Jesus said the two most important laws that man must live by are (a) to love God with all that we are, and (b) to love our fellow men as ourselves (Matt 22:37-40; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27). This also includes our enemies (Matt 5:43-44; Luke 6:27, 35). And Jesus left no doubt that if we love and serve God, we cannot love and serve money (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13). Yet, loving and serving money is exactly what the financial system of the world demands.

A good many Christians see no danger here for themselves. They are confident that they are by no means serving money. And who can blame them? Most people generally have very little insight into how our money system works and its negative and enslaving effects.

The Financial System of the World

I believe that today’s financial system has evolved as a consequence of man rejecting God as the source of his provision, and instead creating his own supply system as a substitute (Jer 2:13). This system has become the basis of our productive economies and the financial world today. But it is an unjust apparatus and of evil design – like everything the world produces without God (John 7:7).

Most Christians are unaware that it violates God's word in virtually every way; its general use of fiat money, fractional reserve banking, interest, extensive debts and limited liability laws renders it exploitative, destructive and unsustainable. It is based on illusions, incessantly demands continual growth at the expense of our available natural resources, ruthlessly expropriates the little wealth of the majority of the population for the benefit of the few capital holders, and ultimately forces its rule on man.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, our economies and the world of finance appear more like war zones: battles are raging in currencies, profits or market shares, ruthless competition, hostile takeovers, dominance through innovation, market leadership and so forth. Blackmail, exploitation, betrayal, nepotism, influence peddling, manipulation, bribery, theft, fraud, lies, falsification of documents, discrediting others, etc., are only some of the weapons being used.

The justified question then is how does that all fit in with God’s fundamental laws of love, honesty, faithfulness and truth? The straight answer is, it doesn’t!

Loving and serving money is exactly what the financial system of the world demands.

For this reason, as far as believers are concerned, Brexit cannot simply be a matter of leaving an artificial union of states that is increasingly usurping the political sovereignty of its members. It also offers the opportunity to break free from forced subjugation to an economic system directed against God's will.

Our financial wellbeing does not depend on human alliances, regardless on which level, nor does it depend on the use of a wicked monetary system that enslaves and ultimately destroys. It depends on God alone (Deut 8:18).

Concrete Instructions

The Bible contains a remarkable number of passages dealing with money and economic issues. Obviously, God felt it necessary to give us a comprehensive spiritual perspective on these themes – firstly, because money plays an essential role in everyday life, and secondly, because it carries a strong potential to conflict with God’s plans and purposes for our lives (individually, corporately and nationally).

The challenge for Christians, situated within a worldly system and vulnerable to its pressures and influences, is to find ways to shun the world and follow our God’s wise instructions, since through him and for him everything was created and in him everything holds together (Col 1:16-17; John 1:2-3; Rom 11:36). His ways are neither tied to nor limited by the mainstream school of thought. Their implementation, however, presupposes openness to a very different paradigm (Rom 12:2; John 15:5; 1 Cor 3:11).

Our financial wellbeing depends on God alone.

Do We Really Know?

No human being knows what will happen tomorrow (Prov 27:1; Luke 12:18-20; James 4:14). Realistically, man without God can only make assumptions about the future – we can neither predict nor plan it (Prov 19:21; 1 Cor 13:9). As a result, man tries to tie down this uncertainty by extrapolating things of the past into the future and adjusting them based on human expertise, imagination, ingenuity, intelligence and wisdom.

Yet, bottom line, it all remains more guesswork than fact. Natural disasters, epidemics, terror, civil unrest, wars, rumours, bankruptcies, manipulation, corruption, vested interests, change of governments, etc., can turn things upside-down in a moment.

Given all this, who is to say that breaking free from evil dictate will indeed result in economic and financial mayhem? We really have no way of knowing. The fear-mongering surrounding Brexit, then, is a reflection less of the facts than of whom we are trying to serve.

Gottfried Hetzer is the author of 'Money ... The Great Deception', which we reviewed earlier this year.

A call to believers to battle for the nation.

I don’t often have a sleepless night worrying about the state of the nation. But I did on Wednesday night after watching the chaotic scenes in Parliament that led to the expulsion from the chamber of the leader of the Scottish Nationalist MPs, followed by their mass walkout.

No, I wasn’t worrying about the possibility of another Scottish Referendum and the breakup of the Union, or about the effect upon our parliamentary democracy of the battle between the Lords and the Commons over Brexit. I was worrying about Bible-believing Christians in Britain being no longer involved in the battle for Brexit.

I am convinced that it was praying, Bible-believing Christians who, through their intercession in the days leading up to the historic 2016 Referendum, helped to produce a majority in favour of leaving the European Union. That this was achieved despite the predictions of the pundits and the enormous effort of the establishment, European and world leaders and the mainstream media, all trying to persuade Brits to stay shackled to the EU, is nothing short of miraculous.

But the Referendum battle was only a minor skirmish in comparison with what is happening now, as the Remainers mobilise their forces to reverse the decision and force Britain to stay within the European Union. That is their intention - nothing less - despite all their protests that they are only trying to ensure good trade deals.

My greatest worry is that I sense that many Christians no longer watch the news and follow the developments in the Brexit process because they are tired of it all, or because it’s all so depressing. Yes, it is! But if Christians opt out of the battle the consequences are unbelievably disastrous. The Bible reminds us that "Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labour in vain” (Ps 127).

If Christians opt out of the battle the consequences are unbelievably disastrous.

Have Christians Given Up?

Britain’s prospective release from the European Project and its demonic powers offers a wonderfully open future, potentially full of prosperity and new life. But this can only be achieved where there is sufficient faith in God to allow for his guidance and blessing to be influential in our national affairs.

My fear today is that many Christians have given up battling in prayer for Britain. Yes, I know what I wrote a year ago about not simply praying for prosperity, but that did not mean that we should not pray for God to use these times of trouble to bring a spirit of repentance into the nation.

I strongly believe in God’s promise given through Jeremiah: “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned” (Jer 18:7).

I note that Jeremiah kept calling for repentance right up to the time when the Babylonian army surrounded the walls of Jerusalem: he knew that if the people put their trust in the Lord they would have been kept safe from the most powerful army in the world, even at that late hour. God would have done something at the last moment to save his people!

But the huge danger today is that many Bible-believing Christians have grown weary of the battle raging among our political masters. What came to me during my sleepless night was that many Christians do not understand the nature of the battle: it is not just a political battle, or a fight to save our democracy; it is part of a major spiritual conflict over the Judeo-Christian heritage – and future - of Western civilisation.

Many Christians do not understand the spiritual nature of the battle.

Spirit of Lawlessness

I believe we have reached a period in the history of the world where the most incredible spiritual battle is taking place - both in the heavenlies and upon earth - for the future influence of the biblical revelation of truth given through the advent, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It may be that what we are seeing is the release of the ‘man of lawlessness’ to which Paul refers in 2 Thessalonians 2. The spirit of rebellion against God, together with the rapid rise of anti-Semitism and the increase in the persecution of Christians in all parts of the world, are symptoms of the great spiritual battle that is raging in our lifetime.

Button worn this week by demonstrators outside Parliament.

Paul warns believers not to underestimate the spiritual powers of darkness that are involved. He says “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph 6:12).

My fear is that most Christians do not understand the nature of this battle. They “have eyes but do not see…ears but do not hear” (Jer 5:21; also Mark 8:18). But Paul wrote that God’s plan was to use the ‘community of believers’ (the congregation of saints) “to make known the manifold wisdom of God to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph 3:10)!

Sounding the Call

If I am right in what I believe I am hearing in my quiet times, the world is rapidly moving into a period of incredible turmoil, with Europe and Israel at the centre of the battle. Once the civil war in Syria is over the attention of the Islamic world will turn to Israel and Britain needs to be free of European shackles if we are to respond as we should before God.

The greatest need today is for Bible-believing Christians, not only in Britain, but across the world, to recognise the nature of the battle and to seek the Lord for the right prayer strategy. Then, the forces of light may be mobilised by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring his message of salvation to the nations and overcome the spirit of death that is driving the nations to destruction.

A trumpet call to prayer must be sounded among Christians – and we can all play our part in this.

The Irish political game: North and South.

Have the lives of unborn children now become pawns in the political game? How low can we sink in the United Kingdom?

Satan’s cleverest lie is that he does not exist. Once that lie is accepted, the guard is down and a stream of further lies and deceptions can follow among which is the lie that there is no God presiding over the affairs of men.

In the course of just one generation, the majority of the people of the United Kingdom have become beguiled in this way: as a consequence, the laws of God have become trampled under our feet and some strange concoction of so-called ‘human rights’ has replaced the fear of the Lord. And this has happened in a nation whose Monarch made an Oath before Almighty God in the 1953 Coronation (whose 65^th anniversary is celebrated this very week) to maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, to the utmost of her power.

Was it not the God of the Bible to whom the Oath was made? The personal God who does exist and cares about the affairs of our nation, to the extent shown in the sacrificial death of His Son, Jesus Christ, the total focus of the Gospel which the Queen, on behalf of the entire nation, vowed to proclaim!

satan’s cleverest lie is that he does not exist. Once that lie is accepted, the guard is down.

A multitude of our laws have changed over one generation to reverse what was once a much better reflection of the laws of God. Is it any wonder that God’s protection is being removed from our nation when we ourselves have reversed laws that were themselves intended to protect?

Thin End of the Wedge

This week, once more the protection of unborn children is in focus, wrapped up in the more clinical language of ‘abortion’ and the misguided language of human and feminist rights. The surprise referendum result in southern Ireland - a rebellion against the hold of the Roman Catholic religion - has sent a shockwave of opportunism up to Northern Ireland to those also wanting to legalise abortion there.

In 1967 a law was passed in Britain to counter back-street abortions so that women whose lives were at risk could find help in the NHS. We were concerned even with that first partial legalisation of abortion, and now we find that step by step, as the mindset of our nation has turned away from Almighty God, that law has become the thin end of the wedge.

Abortion is now more like a method of contraception than a questionable and sensitive measure in the most extreme circumstances of need to protect a mother or her baby when difficult choices have to be made on the grounds of health. And this week I would suggest that we have gone even beyond this, with the lives of unborn babies becoming pawns in the political power game.

Does God Approve?

Before taking this point further, let us pause and consider whether the Most Holy God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob approves of taking the lives of unborn babies. Does he really work on the principle of a woman’s ‘right’ to take control of her own body?

1967 was the thin end of the wedge.

The God who has protected Britain over hundreds of years until this day calls us to be like him and protect the vulnerable of society - and who can be more vulnerable than an unborn child? This is made clear by a principle of his laws found in Exodus 21:21-24. God shows his concern that we protect unborn children by imposing the penalty of the law when an unborn child is harmed. The penalty is: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, would for wound, stripe for stripe - life for life!

This is the seriousness before God of our taking the lives of unborn babies so casually - as if what is hidden in the womb to us is also hidden to him! How foolish!

Crossing Another Line

I believe we crossed yet another line on abortion this week. This is highlighted by the attempt of the Shadow Attorney General, Baroness Chakrabarti, in seeking to goad the Prime Minister on the grounds of feminism to enforce the Northern Ireland Parliament to take steps to bring in an abortion law to match the result of the referendum in southern Ireland. This was front-page news on Monday of this week.

Let’s unpack this a little more to see how far we have fallen before Almighty God since the Coronation of 1953. The Attorney General is the senior legal advisor to the Crown and should therefore interpret, on behalf of the Monarch, how to bring the laws of the Bible into the laws of our nation. The Shadow Attorney General, aspiring to this job, should be amongst the most devout Bible students of our nation, trembling daily before the Throne of God in prayer.

Instead, this particular politician has seized an opportunity to attempt to drive a humanistic political wedge between the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), knowing the strength of resolve of the DUP not to allow abortion in Northern Ireland. Against this, the figure of more than 100,000 lives saved in Northern Ireland because of the resolve of the Northern Irish has been quoted by members of the DUP: 100,000 testimonies of children who lived rather than died.

How wonderful it would be to hear about some of these children who were protected and now can grow up and contribute to our world, rather than to have been cast onto the waste heap before they could even take their first breath.

The God who has protected Britain for centuries until this day calls us to be like him and protect the vulnerable of society.

Inferring the Real Motive

God knows if I am right in my further appraisal of this situation: God is the Judge and his judgement will one day be fully applied. Nothing escapes his notice.

I cannot help observing that politics at times is a game of words and we are left to infer what the real motive is behind what is sometimes said. Members of the Labour Party in opposition are likely to seize any opportunity to bring the Government down. It is known that for important issues, including Brexit, the Government needs the support of the DUP. Therefore, much can be achieved if an issue can be highlighted to break this co-operation.

If the abortion law is such an issue, with motives veiled to what this law would really be doing in taking lives of innocent babies, then even this could be a bargaining chip in the quest for political control.

Almighty Spiritual Battle

We are in an almighty spiritual battle in Britain not even considered by those whose minds have been so veiled by Satan himself. Those who understand what is going on in the spiritual realm must continue to sound the trumpet as watchmen appointed by God.

When lives of unborn babies become bargaining chips in the political power game, how far have we fallen? We raised this point in July last year. The battle has intensified even more this week.

As remembrance events are held today to mark the end of World War II and the sacrifice of so many millions, FIFA is still making headlines for banning players from wearing commemorative poppies.

Today is Armistice Day, and England and Wales are this evening set to defy FIFA's long-standing ban on all "political, religious or commercial messages", and allow their players to wear poppies on their shirts during the World Cup Qualifier match.

This is not a new row – it erupted in 2011, resulting in players being allowed to wear poppies emblazoned on armbands, but not on their shirts.¹ Nevertheless, this year FIFA has stood its ground, and debate has once again erupted in the media over the politics of the poppy. Meanwhile, the rest of the British populace rolls their eyes at political correctness gone mad, wondering when it became unacceptable to commemorate the ultimate sacrifice made by so many millions during the two world wars. How have we got to this point?

The Race to Escape Politics

The debate over whether or not the poppy is a political symbol is an interesting one, but not what I wish to focus on here. Instead, I would like to draw attention to a different, but no less key, aspect of the whole incident: FIFA's blanket refusal to make what could be construed as a political statement.

Like so many institutions and establishments today, FIFA would rather keep its nose (at least, its public nose) out of politics, religion and commerce, even to the point of avoiding any cause that could possibly be construed as such. Contrary to media headlines, FIFA has not deliberately banned the poppy – but they have refused to "pre-judge" whether or not it counts as a political symbol, instead referring the case to a disciplinary committee, which will decide whether or not the rules have been broken.²

Perhaps this is understandable in the light of FIFA's recent political scandals. But ironically, the poppy 'ban' is probably causing more controversy than it prevents. Whether the primary driver here is a fear of losing mass support or a fear of inciting a lawsuit from some avid poppy-haters, it is a sorry state of affairs when concern for self-protection leads an organisation to pass up the opportunity to support a good cause, just because it could be labelled 'political'.

The Poppy Appeal has become collateral damage in a rather inconsistent attempt to erase all trace of politics from football (or at least from its public face). What does this say about the state of our society?

It is a sorry state of affairs when concern for self-protection leads an organisation to pass up the opportunity to support a good cause, just because it could be labelled 'political'.

The Postmodern Hatred of Politics

This may be a controversial point to make, but I personally believe that the essence of all politics is actually moral – since politics is about making arguments, statements and rulings about the good (and the bad) of society. It involves saying what we believe is good and worth pursuing (/legalising/promoting), and what we believe is evil and needing to be fought (/prohibited/eradicated), not just for ourselves but for the collective. When one shows support for a political symbol, message or cause, one is effectively making a moral statement about what one believes is good (or bad) for society. A political statement is a moral statement (and the reverse is also true).

The trouble is, in today's world, we have cut ourselves loose from the objective morality given to us by God – the true word of Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit which help us to distinguish right from wrong. We have rejected the Ultimate Source of morality. And so in Western culture, in the absence of a true, objective definition of right and wrong, morality has become relative – what's right for you might not be so for me. We each 'do as we see fit' (Judg 17:16, 21:25).

And as morality has become an individual, private matter, so has politics. They are two sides of the same coin. Declarations of right and wrong – declarations about what is objectively good and bad – are increasingly unwelcome in the public realm, because public means that which is shared, communal, universal, applicable to all. And how can there be a morality that is universally applicable (or a politics that is universally beneficial) if there is no higher moral authority than the individual? How can anyone 'pre-judge' what is good for all?

Public Declarations of the Good Increasingly Difficult

By rejecting God, we have argued ourselves into a corner – and our establishments are in a bind, increasingly unable to enforce one moral law for all. We lose our ability to distinguish between the immovable, universal rights and wrongs God has instituted, and our personal preferences that arise chiefly from taste and character – God-given diversity. As man becomes god, so we conflate the two.

This is why our entire society is suffering from a lack of direction, a lack of convicted leadership and an unwillingness amongst the establishment to engage with controversial issues: because the tyranny of political correctness stops us from standing up, above the crowd, and making a broader statement about what is morally right and good for everyone. Those who are brave enough are usually sued – because our legal system has become about protecting the individual, above all else.

The upshot of this is that the moral pillars of society become judged by and subjected to the moral vagaries of the individual, not the other way around (e.g. FIFA avoids all political or religious messages because they might upset or disagree with some individuals). And because these shifting sands are such a nightmare, it becomes easier to put a blanket ban on everything that might be controversial.

When the moral pillars of society are subjected to the shifting sands of individual hearts, it becomes easier to put a blanket ban on everything that might be controversial.

Should Christians Care?

Let's go back to the humble poppy. FIFA will not publicly endorse the Poppy Appeal, presumably for fear of being branded 'political' – of making a statement about something other than football that splits people and causes it to lose support. Players may be allowed to wear poppies on armbands (i.e. a matter of personal choice – individual politics/morality), but not on their shirts (collective uniforms, symbolising the position of FIFA as an organisation).

In this particular instance, it takes something as seemingly innocuous as the Poppy Appeal to open our eyes, albeit briefly, to the realities of the political correctness nightmare. But it isn't about the poppy, or about war, or about showing respect for bravery and sacrifice in the face of horror. It's about a much bigger, more endemic cultural disease: amorality.

The problem, of course, is that life is inescapably political and religious. Just as attempts to erase religion from the public realm are doomed to fail (as atheism is itself a faith, and secularism itself a religion, rather than the absence of one), so attempts to depoliticise football are also futile.

But that doesn't mean that attempts to enforce the semblance of political and moral neutrality won't be pushed through – with this false neutrality becoming a Trojan horse for the promotion of unGodly values and ethics. Because again, this isn't about the poppy, and it isn't about FIFA. It is about a growing prohibition of public statements of morality – which is already extending to include expressions of Christian truth in schools, on the streets and even in churches.

That's why Christians should take notice of the poppy debate – and refused to be cowed by the spirit of the age.

"They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old; age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them." ~ For the Fallen, Robert Laurence Binyon (1869-1943)

References

1 Is the poppy a political symbol? Who, What, Why, BBC Magazine, 1 November 2016.

2 Conway, R. England v Scotland: Fifa says Poppy ban reports a 'distortion of facts'. BBC Sport, 11 November 2016.

3 One might also point out FIFA's symbolic inconsistency in featuring the logos of ethically dubious corporate sponsors – such as the Nike logo that adorns all England shirts and the Adidas logo graces the shirts of Scottish players. The poppy is apparently a step too far, however (or perhaps not lucrative enough?).

If we are to regain peace in our nation, we have to study the social geography of voting in the Referendum and learn from it.

My joy at hearing the result of the Referendum was very short-lived when I saw the dismay of some of the younger members of my own family.

Social media went into overdrive in condemnation of the decision to leave the European Union, which many young people saw not as a victory for freedom but as a triumph for racism and prejudice against foreigners.

I was immediately moved with compassion for those who felt betrayed by the older generation who had voted heavily for leaving the EU and who they accuse of not considering the views of young people and their future. But a breakdown of the voting pattern shows that it was not only older voters who wanted to break with the European Union. There were other social dimensions to the voting which are most informative about our society.

Understanding the 'Older' Vote

But first, why did so many older people vote 'Leave'? The simple answer is that they remember being told in 1975 that Britain was joining a trading organisation that would lead to great prosperity for all the nations of Europe and bring greater international cooperation and harmony - which is what everyone desired in the aftermath of two terrible wars in the 20^th Century.

But fundamental changes have taken place in the European Union, from simple trade agreements to political power being removed from our own Government to Brussels and Strasbourg, and our politicians actually admitting that we had been deceived.

The older generation was brought up in a social environment of strict morality where truth, loyalty, integrity and righteousness were universally accepted values – they deeply resent being deceived.

The older generation remember joining a trading organisation that promised peace and prosperity – and which became about political power.

Voting on Principle

These issues and the philosophy underlying the policy being pursued by the European Union were not discussed during the Referendum debate, which was an utter disgrace, descending into personal abuse and slogan shouting.

Many in the older generation ignored the debate and held fast to their social values. They knew that if Britain voted to leave the EU, there would be a period of severe economic turmoil. But, in the long-term, it seems they also believed that British character is sufficiently strong to come through the shockwaves of change and steer the country through to a time of prosperity, equality and a recovery of the values and heritage we have lost.

This is why so many in the older generation voted to reassert our independence from the EU and seek a new relationship with the other nations of Europe in a partnership of peace and prosperity. They did not want to leave Europe! They wanted Britain to decide our own destiny!

Voting Against the Establishment

But it was not only the older generation in Britain who voted 'Leave'. In areas of social deprivation, it was young people who see no future for themselves in simply maintaining the status quo. Their vote was as much against the Westminster establishment who never listen to their plight as it was against the European Union, which is just another set of faceless rulers in the 'them and us' structure of society in which they are the forgotten underclass.

For many young people and ordinary working people this was an opportunity to go against those in power. It was a chance to give a black eye to the bankers, stockbrokers, big business moguls and politicians (even including the Labour Party leaders). Sadly, we belong to a highly structured and divided society, in which the gap between rich and poor, the haves and the have-nots has been growing steadily wider for at least the past 30 years.

It was not only the older generation who voted 'Leave', but also young people – particularly in areas of social deprivation.

This is why the Labour Party is in turmoil today - because it has always been a mixture of middle-class idealists and ordinary working people, but the gap between the workers and the middle classes has grown steadily wider.

The Social Geography of the Vote

Many firms in Britain have been recruiting from Eastern Europe, where migrant workers are willing to work for lower wages that are still vastly higher that they can get in their own countries. But this has created huge resentment among British workers, especially when the migrants bring their families, with great impact upon schools and the Health Service.

The affluent middle classes, academics, civil servants, politicians, bankers and businessmen who voted to 'remain' don't have to compete for jobs with immigrants, feel the upheaval of drastic cultural change or send their children to overcrowded schools. The unwillingness of Labour politicians in Westminster to face these issues is now tearing their Party apart.

If we are to regain peace in our nation, we have to study the social geography of voting in the Referendum and learn from it.

According to figures published by The Times (25 June 2016), 72% of voters in areas of high average house prices (above £282,000) voted to remain; whereas in areas where house prices are lower than that, 79% voted to leave the EU. Similarly, in affluent areas, 65% voted to remain, whereas in areas where average wages are lower than £23,000, 77% voted to leave.

In terms of occupation and education the differences are even greater, with 86% voting to leave the EU in areas of high manufacturing and 83% in local authority areas where more than a quarter of the electorate do not have at least five good GCSEs.

British society is highly divided, with the gap between the haves and the have-nots growing steadily wider for at least the past 30 years.

Holding Out Hope

So what can Christians do to heal the divisions that are so apparent in our nation and promote harmony and a single-minded determination to seek the national good?

First, we all need to show love and compassion to those who fear for the future. We have to replace fear with hope. This can only be done by reasserting the values that have held the nation together during times of great trouble and danger in times past, and by encouraging people to put their trust in the Lord. Today, as one of our readers said in a perceptive comment, our situation is more like Dunkirk than D-Day. When we found ourselves alone facing vast hostility across the Channel we cried out to God for help; we put our trust in the Lord and he answered our prayers. This is the first thing we need to do today!

Secondly we know that we are facing turbulence for the next two years and at the moment we have no stable Government or credible Opposition. Both political parties are deeply divided and have no clear plans for the future, which is highly dangerous for the nation. Christians should be coming together to seek the Lord for his plans. Now is the time for believers to close ranks and unite in prayer for the nation; boldly speaking the word of the Lord. We know that it is only when we recognise the mess we are in and we cry out to the Lord in repentance that any real change will come in the nation, because God always responds to such prayers.

Thirdly we must intercede for our politicians. Prayer groups and intercessors should be praying for the MPs who have to elect a Prime Minister and for each of the candidates. Of the three leading contenders Theresa May attends her local Anglican church, Michael Gove is an Anglo-Catholic and Stephen Crabb is an Evangelical: all three are known to be friendly to Israel. But we not only need a Godly Prime Minister, we need committed Christians in the Cabinet who will have the discernment to know the will of God for the nation and the courage to speak the word of the Lord in decision-making.

Prayer groups should let their local MP know that they are being supported in prayer and ask if there are any special prayer needs. The next few weeks are especially important to pray for MPs when far-reaching decisions will be made. This is where Christians can play a vital part in the affairs of the nation. We need the same boldness that Peter and John had when they faced the leaders of Israel in Jerusalem soon after the Day of Pentecost. They spoke about Jesus and declared "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4.12).

This is the message that should be upon our lips and declared in our Parliament and in the public square!

We re-print an important article on Britain and the EU, by former Speaker of the House of Commons, Viscount Tonypandy.

Viscount Tonypandy, former Speaker of the House of Commons and a committed Christian, was a supporter of Prophecy Today and gave us this article which we published in Vol 13(3), May 1997.

It was a time when Britain was being pressed to join the Common Monetary Fund and there were calls for a Referendum. We feel that it is still very relevant for today.

DEFENCE OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT

Viscount Tonypandy speaks out about the dangers of Britain being drawn more into the European Union

Because ancient tradition requires former Speakers of the House of Commons to avoid involvement in party political affairs, I want to begin by asserting that the future destiny of this land is not a party political issue, it is bigger than that.

It is for this reason I support the initiative in forcing the question of the European Union onto centre stage. Our people have been kept in the dark about Europe, and many have been lulled into the belief that our future is sustainable only if we obey the diktats of non-elected Brussels bureaucrats.

Losing our Liberties

We are experiencing an unprecedented erosion of our traditional liberties; as both our fishermen and our farmers can testify. We are also suffering an ever increasing interference in our domestic, social, political and economic life. We realise how much dust has been thrown in our eyes, so that we have not properly seen where we are being led.

Monumental and historic decisions have been taken in our name, but they have not been made fully public. A supreme example of this chicanery is provided by our famous Fisheries Act which prevented Spanish fishermen sailing under our flag and taking a quota of the fish allocated to us. After the Bill had careful scrutiny in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords it was sent to the Privy Council where the Queen in person gave her approval. Thus it became law – or so we thought! How wrong we were!

The politically motivated European Court of Justice instructed us that our Fisheries Act was illegal. They defined limits on what our Parliament could legislate. Our Westminster Parliament was humiliatingly put behind the European Union! As a further measure of contempt for Westminster, Europe proceeded to give the bullying Spanish fishermen authority to demand compensation for the period that our Privy Council and our Parliament, by our legislation, kept them out of our waters.

What has happened to this proud nation that we allow anyone to treat us in this arrogant way? Has our pride already been consigned to the history book? Nay, I do not believe that. A national referendum is vital to prove that the fallacy is wrong.

We are still proud to be British and no German dominated European Union will ever succeed in crushing that pride.

Britain today is stirring anxiously as it is beginning to realise the extent of the betrayals we have suffered. Our young people are awakening to the peril threatening their future.

Common Market

The largest Common Market in the world is that forged by Canada, the United States of America and Mexico. They function quite successfully without a common currency! They do not intervene in each other's internal affairs. They are not troubled by calls for integration or by threats to each other's national sovereignty. That sort of common market makes sense. It was for that sort of common market, and only that sort, that Britain linked with Europe!

We have been victims of deceit! Britain said 'yes' to the type of common market we see across the Atlantic. As for a common parliament and a common bank – we have never had an opportunity to give our opinion.

Intrigue in high places has embargoed knowledge of secret negotiations reaching the people. In the name of human rights, we demand the chance to decide our own destiny that is the real issue at this time.

Chancellor Kohl's Aim

Listen to the chilling words of German Chancellor Kohl when he was addressing his own people earlier this year (1997). "The future will belong to the Germans – when we build a house of Europe."

Forgetting that the world was listening he added, "In the next two years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight."

It certainly was for Germany! As for us, if we fail to read the menace in the German Chancellor's announcement of his aims we shall betray our heritage. When German chancellors outline in advance what their intentions are, it is criminal irresponsibility not to take their threats seriously (surely that is a lesson we have learned from history after two world wars!).

We said yes to a common market - as for a common parliament and common bank, we have never had the opportunity to give our opinion.

Parliamentary Government

My life has centred around Parliamentary Government in this country. I hold it in the highest esteem, because I know that Parliament is not a caucus of clever creatures who are free to do what they like in Government. The House of Commons is an assembly dependent on a mandate from the nation. And every Government is answerable to the House of Commons.

No cabal of politicians elected for a maximum of five years' service as MPs without any guarantee that they will be even Members in any subsequent Parliament has ever been trusted with a mandate to diminish our heritage, or to barter away our liberties.

The question of a single European currency involves explosive consequences for the UK. We are fortunate because we have one of the most sophisticated electorates in the world; our people have an instinct that alerts them to any threat to our democratic way of life. When we, the British people, are given the vital information, we will tell Parliament the direction in which we demand to go. They will not tell us. We will tell them. Our intellectuals are not less able to assess conflicting issues than are our parliamentarians.

In Britain, parliamentarians serve the people. They do not tell us which direction to take - we tell them.

A referendum, conducted before our Government takes decisions concerning either a single currency or irreversible integration, will compel the production of facts that the electorate has every right to know, but which have not hitherto been fully revealed.

British Constitution

Our unwritten constitution is based on a sure foundation, that has served us well for centuries and that is that no Parliament can bind its successors. Yet this fundamental principle disappears if we integrate with the European Union or have a single European Currency which would make it inevitable. Our gold and currency reserves would be handed over to the European Central Bank in Germany as a 'common resource'. Every future parliament in Britain would be bound and manacled to the biased Brussels bureaucrats.

If any future parliament in this land says, "Enough is enough; we wish to readjust our relationship with you", do you think that the Frankfurt Bank would return our gold and currency reserves? Of course not! Chancellor Kohl has outlined his plans for Europe and I take him seriously. He has warned us that he is intent on making integration irreversible.

Once integrated, there will be no getting out. Integration would be the unforgivable crime of yielding up the liberties and rights for which so many of our compatriots nobly fought and died.

Those who believe that they can frighten or bully us into accepting integration make an old mistake. They underestimate the character of the British people; apparent apathy is grievously misleading to them: a steel-like determination to survive as a nation is part of our make-up.

Those who believe they can frighten or bully us into accepting integration underestimate the character of the British people.

Economic Issues

We fool ourselves when we talk of economic advantages in belonging to the European Union. Europe, sadly, is a diminishing not an expanding factor in world trade. Its significance in world markets diminishes daily. This is not my opinion. It is a fact. In any case we shall continue to trade with Europe, even if we are outside the Economic Monetary Union, but never forget global trade is our vital lifeline for our island history.

We need a referendum badly and we need it before any new decisive moves are made by any Government in this country concerning Europe. For me, the issue towers over party political considerations. It is a concern whether this nation survives with its cherished liberties or not. Give us a referendum in time and we will survive. I am in harmony with the sturdy defence of our British Parliament advanced by my predecessors in the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons.

For me to remain silent now would be an act of treason, for such cowardice would betray the noble heritage handed on to me by former Speakers of the House of Commons.

God bless your efforts, as you battle for Britain, I wish you well.

'Providence, Piety and Power' by John Petley (RoperPenberthy Publishing, 2012, 352 pages, available from the publisher for £14.99. Also available from the Telegraph bookshop and from Amazon)

This book, subtitled 'Biblical government and the modern State', argues that religion has a vital role to play in modern political and social affairs. The author, a former political researcher in Brussels, insists on the relevance of Scripture to current problems and maintains there is an overarching divine Providence watching over us and weighing us in the balance.

Biblical Perspective on Politics

Petley's main thesis is to question the size of the State, suggesting it has grown far too large, with a power and influence now well beyond its Biblical mandate. For instance, the belief than more and more state spending will in itself increase wealth and economic growth has led to "a far greater role for the state in managing a nation's economy than the Bible condones" (p241).

The author asks: how much should be entrusted to a State that does not espouse Biblical principles? In answering he often reverts back to Calvin's distinction between spiritual government and political or civil government. He would agree, for instance, that Government is "God's ordained method of restraining evil" (p82), something that is always necessary in a fallen world.

He would also allow the State a role in regulating commerce, to ensure greater fairness and honesty, and that it should legislate to protect the vulnerable in society, but "the actual caring process – feeding the hungry, nursing the sick and dying – is the responsibility of individuals and communities" (p48).

The author asks: how much should be entrusted to a State that does not espouse biblical principles?

Anti-Socialist

He firmly believes in smaller government, one which performs only those functions ordained for it in the Bible, rather than a 'nanny state' in charge from the cradle to the grave. The author is very much against socialism, something to be aware of when approaching his book. He claims that "the fundamental principles that undergird socialism are totally at odds with the Bible" (p173) and admits that "this book argues strongly that Christianity and socialism are incompatible" (p205).

Overall, his verdict on socialism's big state is one of constant failure as it is built upon a rejection of Biblical teaching. So - be prepared for political bias and controversial statements!

Petley has a strong anti-socialist agenda, and is a firm believer in small government.

Christian Worldview

But the author has genuinely looked for a Biblical perspective in current affairs and thoughtfully considered the development of Christian political thinking down the ages in order to use it as a yardstick for today. The first half of the book largely attempts to develop a Christian worldview, and considers how departures from historic Christianity (for example, deism) have affected political thinking in the past.

There is also great relevance to the debate on Europe and EU membership, and to some extent he has foreseen (in 2012) the shake-up of the political landscape that is now emerging.

Christian Voices in Politics

In concluding, he stresses the urgent need for the Christian voice to be heard again in the political arena, and adds some advice on how to get involved. He explains he wrote this book to "inspire Christians to work actively towards a government in their nation that will be characterised by that righteousness which comes through obedience to the Word of God" (p332).

Here is a book on a fascinating area that many Christians don't consider enough or think through in detail. He may not always persuade you, but you will become better informed.

Here is a book on a fascinating area – he may not always persuade you, but you will become better informed.

Continuing our celebration of Magna Carta 800, Anthony Busk opens up the story behind the charter's Godly principles, and asks what they mean for us today...

Celebrating 800 Years of Freedom

On 15 June 1215, in a meadow near Windsor, King John had to accept the demands of strife-weary earls and barons, and bring in political reform. It was not an amicable meeting. The king was autocratic and used to overriding justice with lawless, arbitrary judgements. Heavy taxation to pay for his wars in Europe, plus a legacy of debt left by his brother Richard (the 'Lionheart'), were threatening civil war.

King John had also interfered with Church elections by refusing to accept the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton (1150-1228). Instead, he wanted a man more amenable towards his own conduct. This had incurred the wrath of the Church of Rome which, by the 13th Century, claimed to be the supreme monarch over all Christendom- including kings and emperors.

The papal assertion of absolute authority led to power struggles across Western Europe. But there were theologians who disputed it. John of Canterbury (1162-1181) believed there was a biblical basis for a monarch to have direct accountability before God in his own right (Rom 13:1; 1 Pet 2:13-14). John was followed by Stephen Langton, who also concluded that kings should lead a nation in the fear of God. In Langton's view, the Church's role must be limited to providing godly advice, based on the Scriptures –but not political involvement. His attitude would have great significance for the future progress of Magna Carta.

The Legacy of Stephen Langton

When Stephen Langton was eventually accepted as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1213, one of his first acts was to rally the nation's disillusioned barons, leading them in pressuring King John to seal Magna Carta. This limited his powers and provided measures of protection for the English people.

Stephen influenced Magna Carta as both as a peacemaker and an intermediary. For instance, an earlier list of demands to the king from the earls and barons was entirely secular. Stephen's influence meant that the preface to the final draft now commenced: 'Know that before God, for the health of our souls...' It also included the phrase: 'at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury...': the Church was not imposing but advising.

Thanks to Stephen Langton, Magna Carta was re-drafted from an entirely secular document into one infused with reverence for God."

This complemented Magna Carta's assertion that the monarch, as the secular authority, must respect that the Church is to be free from political interference- a very important guide for the future. This principle became accepted within Parliament during the Reformation, with the ascendency of the Church of England, and was eventually granted in law to all Christian denominations.

Christian Wisdom

Thanks to Stephen Langton's influence, Christian wisdom permeated Magna Carta's principles. As these principles became enshrined in English law, government and culture, so Godly values came to underpin the nation.

For instance, through his studies of Scripture, Langton developed the principle of 'due process', where someone cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. This appears in several of Magna Carta's 'chapters'. Ch 39 reads:

No man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised (fined) or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him, save by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the loss of the land.

This is the principle which led to the present day trial by jury. Addressing the vexatious approach by the king to tax with impunity, chapter 12 also points towards a future Parliament of the people: 'No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent...' To assess tax levels there would be individual summons by letter of the good and the great 'to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice should be given) and at a fixed place...' (Ch 14).

The Role of Scripture

Magna Carta's strength down the centuries has lain in its application of Scripture, particularly the Old Testament. Stephen Langton believed that Scripture contained good principles of law that were applicable within any culture– not only Israel. For example, to reduce theft:

Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner (Ch 31/Deut 5:19).

False weights and measures were also condemned:

There shall be one measure of wine throughout all our kingdom...and one measure of corn; and one width of tinted clothes...Moreover for weights it is to be as for measures (Ch 35/Deut 25:13-15).

Magna Carta's strength through the centuries has lain in its application of Scripture."

In Jeremiah 18, we find an explicit illustration of the universal principles of God's governance:

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in my sight, so that it does not obey my voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it (v10).

Here, we find the defining of behaviour as evil or good, which in turn requires a fabric of 'legal' guidance (given in the Ten Commandments). It also makes clear that Almighty God does reveal himself, and if there is no response to his merciful warnings, the nation will break down.

One may summarise this as whether a country – especially its leadership – has a true fear of God, or has contempt for his laws. Romans 1 and 2 demonstrate in New Testament times that there is a 'common law' for all humanity, which when ignored provokes the wrath of God.

Challenges Today

Through Magna Carta, many biblical teachings have become legally embedded within British culture, becoming the law 'common to all'. Today, its legal message and social implications are still highly significant. This year, both the Law Society and the Bar have claimed that the Charter underpins the Rule of Law in England and Wales.¹ They quote Lord Denning, who described it as:

the greatest constitutional document of all times –the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.

In today's culture, however, Magna Carta's principle of the rule of law is being undermined, because the objective template of law itself is being denied. Centuries of commonly-held Judeo-Christian principles, enriched through the influence of Scripture embedded heroically over the years by our forefathers, are being stripped away as a medieval anachronism.

Today Magna Carta's principle of the rule of law is being undermined, as the foundation stones of right and wrong are being replaced with the shifting sands of personal feelings and the barometer of being offended."

The foundation stones of right and wrong are being replaced with the shifting sands of personal feelings, and the barometer of being offended. The legal grounds to determine righteousness from unrighteousness are becoming transient. Justice can now be dependent on where the judge sits within a cacophony of shifting equality and human rights themes. The Church, its institutions and doctrines are under attack because the rule of law, which formerly gave it protection, is itself struggling.

Lessons to Apply

What are the lessons of Magna Carta? Perhaps most important is for the secular authority to recognise it is directly under a higher authority, and must never gravitate into a dictatorship, impervious to the laws of God and arbitrary in judgement. This is precisely summarised in prayers held prior to the sittings of both the Lords and the Commons. The latter includes the words:

Lord, the God of all righteousness and truth, grant to our Queen and her government, to Members of Parliament and all in positions of responsibility, the guidance of your Spirit. May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals...Amen.²

Another message is the freedom of the Church, which must protect its integrity and independence from State interference. However, it also has responsibilities towards the State. It must persistently assert the responsibility of politicians and their hierarchy of civil servants to recognise God's sovereignty over nations. The Church must pray hard and speak up, to provide an anchor of righteousness of which politicians and civil servants can grasp hold.

Magna Carta not only affirms the Church's need for freedom from state interference; it also reminds us that the Church has responsibilities: to pray hard, speak up and provide an anchor of righteousness for the nation."

If we abandon Judeo-Christian values, there will be consequences. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Pro 14:34).

Jehovah Nissi

The Church, the people of God redeemed through Christ's sacrifice, has a duty to both teach and encourage those who rule. It was God-fearing Christians 800 years ago who laid down the foundations of our democracy. There is a requirement for this generation to follow their example. New, Holy Spirit-breathed initiatives are required to assist MPs and others in authority to maintain and develop laws relevant to our culture. Individual Christians and churches also need to recognise the great importance of prayer for both national and local government. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 is very clear on this matter.

It is true that radical groups, not fearing the true God, have infiltrated politics at a high level, and are wreaking havoc upon the young and vulnerable. It is also true that through a gross distortion of the biblical principles of equality and respect, the fabric of law and order is being undermined. Unchecked this will lead to anarchy. However, a casual study of history demonstrates that no brutal assault is impossible to conquer, though it may seem it at the time.

800 years go, God-fearing Christians helped lay the foundations of our democracy. This generation must follow their example- we are the living Church for today."

We are the living Church for today, the infantry God wishes to use. His role has not changed, but remains Jehovah Nissi – 'the Lord is our banner'! Christians must follow our forefathers' example, engaging with a broken world, co-operating with the Holy Spirit and particularly blessing those in governance.

About the author: Anthony Busk has a background in ministry and a keen interest in the relationship between the Church and secular government. Through his own journey from secularism to whole-hearted commitment to the authority of Scripture, Anthony is overwhelmed by the real love and compassion Jesus has for a broken world, and of our need to press forward despite the darkness - proclaiming righteousness and reconciliation with God through the empty cross.

References

1 Caplen, A and MacDonald, A, 2014. Magna Carta: The Foundation of Freedom 1215-2015. Joint Law Society/Bar Council Special Edition, Third Millennium Publishing.

2 Parliament prayers.