Are those who oppose the EU really backward-looking and bigoted?

Reversing Brexit is currently the chief General Election objective of all those people, especially Liberal Democrats, passionately committed to furthering the goal of European union.

This group includes many of our young people, particularly those in higher education, because of a deeply rooted but mistaken belief that the desire to preserve or (in Britain’s case) re-gain national sovereignty is somehow ‘racist’ and reactionary. They are taught that ‘nationalism’ leads to war, and being patriotic supposedly implies that one dislikes foreigners.

However sincerely held this belief may be, it should be rejected firmly by biblically informed and historically literate Christians.

The fallen human nature of ambitious and despotic rulers, obsessed by the selfish pursuit of wealth and power, has been the chief cause of war down the ages - not the existence of self-governing nation-states.

As for World Wars I and II, they, like so many armed conflicts of the modern era, were launched by militaristic dictatorships against mainly liberal democracies, whose peaceful exercise of their national sovereignty threatened nobody.

Reversing Brexit is the chief General Election objective of all those passionately committed to furthering the goal of European union.

Consequently, the real lesson of history is the very opposite of that drawn by the supporters of European integration. Since power corrupts because human beings are fallen creatures, it is essential that it remain dispersed, in an international system of ‘checks and balances’, rather than centralised and concentrated in a European Super-State.

Curbing Immigration: Right or Wrong

These ideas about national sovereignty and freedom are highly relevant to the controversial issue of immigration.

Politically correct ‘liberals’ always imply that the desire to restrict immigration is morally suspect, because it stems (supposedly) from a xenophobic, bigoted dislike of foreigners. Even when political pressures force them to acknowledge people’s legitimate concerns about the impacts of mass uncontrolled immigration on schools, hospitals, housing and transport, they do so reluctantly, always wanting to change the subject to the need for more government action to create jobs and improve public services.

Yet whilst it is obviously important to combat racists and welcome the positive contributions made by so many immigrants to our economies and societies, there is a strong and principled case for acknowledging the right of individual countries to control their own borders.

Border Control is Moral

In the first place, a country’s right to control its borders and restrict immigration is an essential component of its national sovereignty. If it is not allowed to determine who is or is not permitted to cross its frontiers and settle within them, it cannot maintain its distinctive national character or preserve its political independence.

Consequently, if we value an international system in which political power is de-centralised, we should recognise that mass uncontrolled migration threatens these institutional and cultural foundations, and should therefore be curbed.

There is a strong and principled case for acknowledging the right of individual countries to control their own borders.

A second and related argument is that liberal democracies cannot preserve their sovereignty, cultural unity and liberties if they open their doors to too many migrants whose cultural beliefs and values are fundamentally at variance with those of a free society. This truth is particularly relevant to the question of mass migration from the Muslim world, especially within the context of the global spread of radical Islam.

Freedom to Critique Islam

As the annual reports of international human rights monitoring organisations like Freedom House regularly reveal, most of the Islamic world is blighted by religious intolerance, sectarian violence and political tyranny. Women largely remain second-class citizens, freedom of thought and speech is non-existent or heavily restricted, and the rights of religious and ethnic minorities are generally trampled underfoot.

Some two million Christians, for example, have been driven out of their Middle East homelands over the past 20 years. But the greatest victims of Muslim violence and intolerance have been and continue to be other Muslims. According to a 2007 study by Harvard-trained scholar and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes, and Professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of Bremen:

…some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3%, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90% of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.¹

To highlight these facts, and the difficulties they pose for European countries struggling to control immigration from the Muslim world, is not to indulge in Islamophobia or to deny the fact that most Muslims currently living in Western countries live at peace with their neighbours and contribute to our societies. It is simply to draw attention to what is a genuine political and cultural problem widely acknowledged by liberal Muslims and human rights activists.

In March 2007, for example, a brave group of Muslim writers and intellectuals came together at a ‘Secular Muslim Summit’ in St Petersburg, Florida, USA, and issued a freedom manifesto called The St. Petersburg Declaration. This declared, amongst other things, that:

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called ‘Islamophobia’ in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights…We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid structures of orthodoxy…²

Against this background, is it really ‘racist’ or illiberal for Western governments to seek to limit the entry into their countries of large waves of migrants? These will inevitably include a minority of Muslims who advocate Sharia law, do not recognise freedom of conscience or speech, treat women as inferior beings, and feel no loyalty or attachment to their host communities.

Liberal democracies cannot preserve their liberties if they open their doors to too many migrants whose cultural beliefs and values are fundamentally at variance with those of a free society.

Protecting Personal Freedom

It remains, finally, to observe that peace, harmony and wealth creation depend primarily on the voluntary co-operation and enterprise of private individuals, organisations, and businesses - that is, on all the myriad relationships, activities, and institutions of civil society outside the State.

Therefore, a peaceful and harmonious world requires that the coercive power of government be kept to a minimum, and maximum scope be given to personal initiative, effort and creativity.

That may seem a utopian dream, but such a world is more likely to become a reality (at least in part) if its existing free societies retain (or re-gain) their sovereignty and independence, trading freely with each other and co-operating in defensive alliances and the pursuit of common solutions to regional and global problems.

In such an international environment of competing tax systems, centres of power, and legal jurisdictions, connected to each other by free trade, travel and communication, private individuals and independent institutions will always have more room to breathe, and greater freedom of action, than if they are imprisoned within a world of regional power blocs – or, worst of all, some monopolistic system of global government.

Note Well

The single most important historical fact about the 20th Century is that more people (170 million of them) died in internal repression under tyrannical rulers and governments, than in all its wars combined.³

Bearing this in mind, no true friend of liberty should have any hesitation in opposing the misguided idealism of those who believe that abolishing national sovereignty will lead to a better world.

References

1 Click here for full details.
2 Click here to read the full text of the Declaration.
3 For fuller details, see: R.J. Rummel, 1996. Death by Government. Transaction Publishers, USA. Also The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press, USA, 1999).

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘One Flesh’ by Peter Sammons (2012).

This very readable and accessible book sets out the biblical perspective on marriage and male-female relationships generally. Taking its title from Genesis 2:24 (which Jesus endorses in Matthew 19:5), the main theme is the uniting of the two genders according to God’s purposes.

The author’s aim is for his readers to get “a clearer idea of how God wants them to live out their lives as regards the opposite sex”, adding that “we will see some pitfalls to avoid and discover some principles which, if adopted, will help us to make good and healthy choices for the way we live our lives and with whom we share them” (p12).

This is no starry-eyed approach to what can be a difficult topic, both in theory and in practice. Living ‘happily ever after’ may be the hope and dream but reality is often very different, and the author is well aware of the hurts and disappointments that can occur in the pursuit of one of life’s main blessings. He tackles very sensitively the risks and rewards of entering into marriage and explains well the enormous responsibilities that such a lifelong commitment carries with it.

This is no starry-eyed approach to what can be a difficult topic.

Soul Mates?

One interesting point is where he discusses the modern idea of a soul mate. Sammons asserts that “the Bible in no place so much as hints at such an idea” (p48). He adds that this concept owes much to the New Age movement and actually has pagan roots. He states that Scripture “gives us no indication at all that there is only one person in all eternity that we might marry”, which he describes as “extremely liberating” (p48). In principle, happiness can be found with any one of many people, if both partners are prepared to work at building a life together. It should be added, however, that the author is clear that once a marriage takes place, there is then only one partner while each is alive.

One good section of the book is the account of the ‘true love story’ of Isaac and Rebecca, from which the author draws several godly principles.

Further scriptural passages given lengthy treatments include the romance between Ruth and Boaz and, inevitably perhaps, the Song of Songs. In these cases the author brings out the clear distinction between the Hebraic mindset on such matters and that portrayed by Greek thinkers, such as Plato and Augustine, which has so influenced Western culture.

The Definition and Purpose of Marriage

It is not until we get halfway through the book that the author attempts a biblical definition of marriage (too lengthy to quote here), the main point being to contrast it with a legal dictionary definition (even lengthier!) where it is called a contract rather than the more biblically accurate description of marriage as a covenant.

Interestingly, Sammons asserts that the first task of marriage is to banish loneliness, and only of secondary significance is that it enables a man and woman to join with God in the process of creation of new life.

Legally marriage is a contract, but the more biblically accurate description of marriage is a covenant.

Also at this halfway point, we are given a fuller understanding of the meaning of ‘one flesh’ which is too often assumed to refer primarily, or even exclusively, to sexual union. Sammons suggests the phrase in Genesis means much more, namely “to become a single functioning unit that draws its strength from itself. Being one flesh entails the complete identification of one personality with the other in a community of interests and pursuits, a union that is consummated in the act of physical unity” (p93). Much to ponder there!

Tricky Issues

As well as explaining the ‘leaving and cleaving’ aspect of becoming ‘one flesh’, the author also touches on the related topics of singleness and polygamy. Furthermore, he does not shirk the tricky issues of male headship, cohabitation and divorce, all of which he approaches with sensitivity yet firm convictions. It is also pleasing to note that he has stern words for those who promote sexual experimentation under the guise of sex education.

Boy meets girl – it happens all the time. But then what? Writers and musicians down the centuries have depicted many scenarios that could follow, often with less-than-happy consequences. The Bible never claims that marriage is easy, or that it will be a bed of thornless roses. But, Sammons believes, “the genius of marriage is that it provides a wonderful medium for love to grow…love is not so much the basis for marriage, but rather marriage is the basis for love” (p162).

Sexual sin may or may not be the worst form of sin, but its consequences can be more far-reaching than most. In this area of life, as in all others, Christians will want to live by godly standards but, as Sammons points out, “we are up against a powerful alliance of enemies: our own natural inclinations, the propaganda of the world, and the propaganda of the devil” (p101-102). We will have a better chance to stand against ‘the world, the flesh and the devil’ after reading this book.

One Flesh (171 pages, Glory to Glory Publications) is available from the publisher for £9.99 inc. P&P, or for free as a downloadable e-book. Also available on Amazon.

God is giving us an amazing opportunity for the advancement of his Kingdom - but there is much work to be done.

In our Editorial two weeks ago we said that the Referendum day was "in many senses a 'D-Day' – a decision day which may become a DELIVERANCE DAY" on 23 June.¹

That, as it turns out, was a prophetic statement. The nation has voted for freedom from the shackles of the European Union.

Of course, all of us on the Editorial Board of this magazine are glad and we see this as a great act of mercy and compassion of God. We believe it is a wonderful answer to prayer. God is giving us an amazing opportunity for the advancement of his Kingdom. But our rejoicing is tempered by the knowledge that the moral and spiritual state of our nation remains unchanged by this vote.

Long Journey Ahead

One of our readers who commented on the Editorial mentioned above said, "...it is glaringly obvious that the UK does not meet the conditions for divine intervention in Jeremiah 18:7-8".²

They saw the Referendum as more like Dunkirk than D-Day, and the little prayer and Bible study groups around the country like the "little ships that played such a key role in evacuating the troops off the Dunkirk beaches."³

This perceptive comment reminds us that Christians are now in the minority in Britain and we have a huge mountain to climb if we are to seize the opportunity that God is graciously giving to us to make a real change in this nation.

Acknowledging the Good of the EU

Prophecy Today was first published in 1985 and since that time we have always sought to present the truth in every situation - even if it has been unpopular. We know that some of our readers do not share our dislike of the European Union and our passion to be free from its restrictions and regulations. We understand that, and we want to acknowledge the good that the EU has done in providing Europe with the longest period of peace in its history over the past 500 years of sporadic warfare and squabbling among the nations.

God has been so gracious to us – but we have a huge mountain to climb if we are to seize the opportunity to make real change in this nation.

The EU has also a good record on human rights and ensuring the fair treatment of workers and opposing gender and racial discrimination. These and many other good things should not be discarded by our leaving the European Union.

There were many advantages in the Common Market that we originally joined some 43 years ago, that have enhanced trade and contributed to good international relationships – peace and prosperity. But the old sinful human lusts for power, and greed for wealth, became the driving force behind the direction of the EU's growth from a small trading association towards a super-state exercising increasingly totalitarian control over its members. This has been its undoing – the corrupting power of power, which has given vast wealth to some and unemployment and poverty to others.

Revolt Against the Elites

Of course the global corporations and bankers and the ruling classes wanted Britain to remain in the EU, but the ordinary working people across the country saw through the facade presented by those who wanted to retain the status quo. The real significance of this Referendum is that it was a 21^st CENTURY PEASANTS' REVOLT.

The politicians who live in the Westminster bubble and London itself, where property prices have been obscenely inflated by foreign capital, have been becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the country. This is a fact that is glaringly obvious from the Referendum voting.

Turmoil and Testing

The greatest casualty in the Referendum Debate has been TRUTH. The amount of mud-slinging and personal abuse, mixed in with deliberate lies and deception, has been a national disgrace. It needs to be followed rapidly by a large amount of humility and forgiveness on both sides of the debate, not merely to quieten things down but to seek genuine unity of purpose for the good of the country.

Of course the immediate future is likely to be characterised by turmoil, not only in the financial markets which always hate uncertainty, but also in terms of social solidarity. This will be the greatest test of David Cameron's leadership: to steer the nation through the next few months until he is replaced in Number 10.

I believe him to be an essentially honest politician – a rare accolade in any age. Of course he has made mistakes, because like the rest of us he is a human being. But there are few politicians who would have had the courage to give the nation a Referendum as he has done! We should honour him for this.

I believe David Cameron to be an essentially honest politician, and we should honour him for his courage to call the Referendum in the first place.

His biggest mistake has been to claim that he had achieved "a reformed Europe" following his whirlwind tour of European capitals. Everyone could see that there were no signs of 'reformation' in the European Union. So when he referred to it people laughed. If only he had said that he had been unable to obtain the reforms that he wanted to see and then led the nation to leave the EU - his political career would have soared!

Weathering the Storm

We must now pray for godly leaders to emerge in Westminster, to lead the nation through turbulent waters. The nation needs leaders who acknowledge the moral and spiritual mess we are in and who are prepared to assert biblical values of truth and honesty with humility before the Lord, emphasising the Judaeo-Christian heritage of this nation and seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the Lord for the way forward.

God is giving to Britain an amazing opportunity to enter a new era of blessing and prosperity when we have weathered the storm of our exit from the EU. Our leaving is likely to be met with hostility from EU leaders, but we have to be prepared to return good for evil and to find ways of establishing a new partnership with the other nations of Europe, rather than turn our backs upon them and try to live in isolation. That would surely not be right in the sight of the Lord.

We must pray for godly leaders to emerge in Westminster, to lead the nation through turbulent waters.

Trust in the Lord!

After weeks of praying "Thy will be done", Christians need to recognise the outcome of the Referendum as an act of God and give thanks for his goodness. But so much now depends upon our seeking brotherly love and Holy Spirit unity within the Church of all traditions – ancient and new – as the Body of Christ in Britain.

This would be a powerful witness to the nation. Whichever way they voted, many are now nervous of the future. By our love we must "strengthen [their] feeble arms and weak knees" (Heb 12:12) and encourage one another by our trust in the Lord and our devotion to Christ.

All Bible-believing Christians believe in the Sovereignty of God, and God has chosen to give us freedom from the EU. Therefore, we have now to ask the Lord what he wants us to do with the new freedom that he has granted us; not just to be free once again to fish in our own waters and pass our own laws, but to declare publicly the word of God in this land!

We need to recognise the outcome as an act of God – but so much of the future now depends on the Church's response.

There are already signs of God touching the lives of people in some parts of the country and if we are faithful we could see an amazing work of God with many people giving their lives to Jesus and our prayers being answered for his name to be hallowed in Britain, and his will to "be done, on earth as it is in Heaven!" (Matt 6:10).

References

1 Click here to read the editorial.

2 Click here to read the full comment.

3 Ibid.

The Government's propaganda may put people off, or it may deceive them - just as the nation was deceived in the 1975 EU Referendum.

British people dislike bullies. We have a strong sense of fair play and on big issues we like to weigh the evidence and make up our own minds. We are an island people and we value our independence. We do not like being bullied. This is why the huge pressure being put upon the electorate by the Government and their overseas friends, international leaders, big business corporations and bankers may prove to be counter-productive.

The Government promised to help the undecided by publishing the facts. Instead, they have spent £9 million on a blatant piece of propaganda trying to persuade us to stay in the European Union. The front page title of the booklet gives the game away. It says nothing about a presentation of the facts. Its title is "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK". It then states "The UK has secured a special status in the reformed EU".

We should surely be entitled to ask, what 'special status'? And in what way is the EU 'reformed'? Are the British people once again being deceived by lies from powerful politicians - as we were 40 years ago?

More Deception?

What is happening today looks very similar to how we were tricked into entered the European Union. Ted Heath, the Prime Minister who did the original deal in 1973, readily admitted before he died that he had lied to Parliament and to the British people because he knew that we were not simply joining a trading group but that the intention was always to work towards the formation of a United States of Europe in which we would all lose our sovereign identity.¹

This fact was deliberately kept hidden from the British public when we voted at the 1975 referendum on whether or not we should stay in the 'European Economic Community' ('Common Market') as it was then described. In those days it was largely a trading group with nine member states, whereas today the EU is a very different beast, with 28 members in a tightly regulated organisation bound by treaties, such as Maastricht and Lisbon, and controlled by an unelected Commission backed by an enormous bureaucracy, with institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice exercising enormous power over our own parliament and legal courts.

In 1975, we were asked to vote on whether we should stay in a small trading group of nine countries. Today, the EU is a very different beast.

When the Maastricht Treaty was being negotiated there were attempts by churches to get some reference to the Judaeo-Christian heritage of Europe but this was strongly resisted by secular humanists, who prevailed.² The resultant European Union is not only deliberately a godless - in fact, God-denying - organisation, but it is also systemically corrupt, as demonstrated by the fact that it has not been able to persuade the auditors to endorse its accounts for at least the past five years.³ In this country, if a company were in that situation they would not only be prosecuted but they would not be allowed to continue in business.

Miracles in the Past

So how should Christians decide on such an important issue? We surely have to recognise the moral and spiritual battle for the soul of Britain that is involved in the present referendum debate. Christians need to know what God is saying to us, not least by looking at the recent history of Britain in a biblical context. This enables us to understand the purposes of God and what he requires of a nation with a strong Judaeo-Christian heritage such as Britain's.

There are still many people in the older generation who remember that God worked a miracle at Dunkirk in 1940, saving our army from annihilation and giving us victory in the Battle of Britain in the skies. Even Churchill acknowledged in Parliament that it Dunkirk was a "miracle of deliverance".⁴ Those were days when the whole nation turned to prayer.

It was also at a time of national prayer that Hitler took the irrational decision not to invade Britain. It is now recognised that if the German invasion had taken place in 1940 nothing could have stopped them conquering Britain. Dad's Army would no doubt have fought valiantly but German Panzer tanks would have been rolling down Whitehall within days. 

When a nation puts its destiny in the hands of God it can expect miracles to happen. It has happened in the past and it can happen again today – if there is a sufficiently strong believing remnant in the country.

When a nation puts its destiny in the hands of God it can expect miracles to happen. It has happened in the past and it can happen again today.

Opportunity for the Remnant

Of course we know that as a nation we have spurned our spiritual heritage: we have passed many ungodly laws and we no longer deserve to be called a Christian nation. But there is undoubtedly a strong remnant of believers in the older generation and there are many indications of young people coming to faith in Jesus – possibly in reaction to the mess their unbelieving parents have made of the nation. It is the middle generation who are missing in many churches up and down the country today.

Believing Christians know that as a nation we deserve judgement but we also know the love and mercy of God who has given a solemn promise, "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).

The Referendum debate is bringing believing Christians to prayer throughout the country. Many prayer meetings are organised for this weekend, St George's Day, 23 April, and many more are planned between now and 23 June. These prayer meetings give us a chance to seek the Lord and know what he is saying to the nation so that we can pray in line with God's will and vote accordingly.

Word on the EU, 2015

We have already nailed our colours to the mast in this magazine but we know many Christians who are still undecided. We respect their integrity and we therefore encourage them to join other Christians in prayer where they can spend time spreading the whole issue before the Lord who will surely answer in clarity.

If you have not yet decided which way to vote, we encourage you to join with others in prayer and spread the issue before the Lord.

Alongside this article we are printing a prophecy from David Noakes that has already been widely circulated. I was with him when he received this prophecy towards the end of last year. David and I have been close friends and colleagues since the early days of the old printed magazine, Prophecy Today.

We have shared a platform at hundreds of meetings over the years and I have heard him prophesy many times, but I have never heard him bring a word that is as directional as this. In publishing it today, please understand that we are not saying that this is a direct word from the Lord. We offer it in love and humility to our fellow believers for weighing and testing, and we offer it as part of the process of seeking the word of the Lord for Britain today.

References

1 E.g. Quote from PRO/FCO 30/789, Sub-committee of official committee on monetary aspects of UK entry to EEC, 1970. The Heath Government's positive response: PRO/CAB 164/771, Informal talks with the European Commission and the exchange of views with member countries during the negotiation period, 1970.

2 E.g. Anderson, MJ. Ungodly Ways: The Dark Side of the European Union. CRISIS Magazine, 1 June 2003.

3 Waterfield, B and Dominiczak, P. EU auditors refuse to sign off more than £100billion of its own spending. The Telegraph, 4 November 2014.

4 Speech to the House of Commons, 4 June 1940. Transcript available via The Churchill Society.