Why do you seek him among the dead?

The Arbour has moved. Follow us at our new home here.

UKIP's by-election literature: be informed #OldhamWest

As you are probably aware, Oldham West & Royton - the constituency in which I live - is in the the throes of a by-election campaign following the recent death of our sitting MP Michael Meacher. And, as is customary during such occasions, party campaign literature is beginning to arrive through the letterbox. Today, I had the pleasure of receiving a circular from UKIP's parliamentary candidate, John Bickley. The leaflet was rather asking for a fisking, so here it is:

Michael Meacher was a conviction politician who worked hard for the voters of Oldham West & Royton. He represented the people of this constituency, for a party that no longer represents anybody.

A bold claim indeed. But Michael Meacher was elected in the 2015 General Election to the Oldham West & Royton seat on a majority of 23,630. That is more votes than the UKIP (8.892), Conservative (8,187), Lib Dem (1,589) and Green (839) candidates combined. Evidently the people of Oldham West & Royton felt Michael Meacher, as part of the Labour Party, represented them pretty happily. Given the man represented the constituency since 1970 (always under the auspices of the Labour Party), the claim seems fatuous.

I used to believe in Labour. Like many in my family before me I thought that the Labour Party believed in representing the hard working people of our country. That was a long time ago. Far from believing in the people of Britain, Corbyn's Labour Party would rather sympathise with the IRA than sing our national anthem to honour our brave armed forces.

It is probably worth pointing out that WWII was fought precisely so that we might have the freedom to decide whether to sing the national anthem or not. It would be rather odd to fight fascism simply to replace it with a rather more British version. As for honouring our "brave armed forces", I am at a loss as to what evidence is being offered to suggest the Labour Party don't? Presumably this is in response to not singing the national anthem which, for the sake of clarity, nowhere honours the armed forces.

Aside from all that, it seems something of a non-sequitur that Labour once supported working people (as Mr Bickley himself ruefully notes) but now doesn't because they (though I suspect this is limited to Mr Corbyn) don't sing the national anthem. I struggle to see the link here.

I'm standing in this by-election to fight for what I believe in. I'm standing to fight for what is best for Britain. I'm standing for the unwritten future of our children and grandchildren. I'm standing for you and I want to tell you my top priorities for this election.

UKIP believes in the NHS and with my party I will fight to keep the NHS free at the point of use. When they were in power, the Labour Party not only supported but encouraged the fat cat privatisation of the NHS with PFI deals.

Equally, we could look at the words of their leader Nigel Farage. He claimed Britian will "have to return" to a debate about funding the NHS through a private insurance system. He has also been caught on record stating the NHS should be "funded through the marketplace of an insurance company".

Again, Paul Nuttall (one time UKIP deputy leader) stated: "I would like to congratulate the coalition government for bringing a whiff of privatisation into the beleaguered National Health Service".

Douglas Carswell, UKIP's only sitting MP, famously wrote in his document Direct Democracy, that his proposals may "see some local health services introduce private health insurance schemes, which if successful, other local health services would then want to emulate in order to satisfy the raised expectations of their own local electorates."

UKIP is opposed to mass, uncontrolled immigration. We are the only party prepared to take on the establishment and regain control of our borders. David Cameron is unwilling, unprepared and incapable of doing it. His Tories can't take on the establishment, they are the establishment.

I want to live in a country where I can feel safe again. How can we possibly combat criminal gangs when we're importing organised crime, unchecked from overseas? Right now we can't even look into the backgrounds of people who come into this country. The Labour Party did that, and the Tories can't fix it.

It is fair to say all the major parties are opposed to "mass, uncontrolled immigration". Were they not, all would dispense with wasting money on any border staff at all. Most waves of mass immigration that have come to this country have been thoroughly controlled and usually in response to a distinct lack of native workers with specialist skills. Presumably, the reference is to our continued membership of the European Union. However, Jeremy Corbyn has made no secret of his position of the EU and the Labour Party have been very clear that they will not be giving David Cameron a complete pass on his EU negotiation.

More concerning, Mr Bickley states he wants to live in a country where he can feel safe again. It does seem that immigration is the basis for his safety concerns and he goes on (without any credible evidence) to link immigration with "criminal gangs" and "organised crime". If such was true, we would find our prisons full of immigrants and foreign nationals. The figures, as of 2012, don't seem to bear this out (see here). The immigrant and foreign national numbers in prison seem to reflect the the national immigrant population.

I think it's time that somebody took a stand and protected our national identity. I'm unashamedly patriotic, I'm proud to be British and proud of all the people in our country.

I refer you to the above. Apparently he is "proud of all the people in our country" except those who have come as immigrants.

As a Mancunian, I believe that the fight to get our country back should start here, in Oldham West & Royton.

"As a Mancunian" is unlikely to go over well with those who are overtly and self-consciously Oldhammers. Indeed, one might almost appear a little like an immigrant.

The need to defend free speech

In light of things like this, but more directly things like this, this, this, this, this and this, and unhelpful and unconscionable consequences like this, this and this I suggest you go here and sign up to this.

Free speech is becoming ever less free. Over the last 15 years, encroachments onto this several hundred year old right have been increasing. It would be remiss to lay the blame at any one government's door. For the start of such interference began with the Blair-era New Labour government and have continued with aplomb under David Cameron's Conservative government. The introduction of such draconian, heavy-handed and ill-considered legislation is therefore neither solely a Conservative nor Labour foible and - with their recent foray into government before their catastrophic implosion - the Liberal Democrats do not escape unscathed either. 

The clampdown on free speech and basic civil liberties is manifestly a centrist obsession. Governments, and parties of government, across the board have played their part in pressing forward such inhibiting laws. The strongest opposition to such measures has unerringly come from those on, and to, the left of the Labour Party (eg Michael Meacher, Diane Abbott, Caroline Lucas, Peter Tatchell, et al) and the right, and those to the right, of the Conservative Party (eg David Davis, Douglas Carswell, Fiona Bruce, et al). Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat centrists and moderates appear to be those most keen to implement extreme, draconian and thoroughly immoderate laws that inhibit basic civil liberties.

If you value the right to be able to think and express opinions that may, or may not, accord with the cultural zeitgeist  then consider joining the above campaign. If you find any of these following pronouncements troubling, then consider joining the above campaign.

"Extremism Disruption Orders will go “beyond terrorism” and “eliminate extremism in all its forms”. - George Osbourne, Chancellor of the Exchequer

"If that’s what you think and that’s what you believe and you want to hold that in your head, that is your business and your right but bear in mind that if you speak it out loud you might be breaking the law.” - Polly Harrow (head of safeguarding and Prevent) [in response to being asked if someone was allowed to have a religious opinion against homosexuality]

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone... This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach." - David Cameron, Prime Minister

"There will, I’m sure, be some who say politicians shouldn’t get involved in these matters. But to live in a modern liberal state is not to live in a moral vacuum. We have to stand up for our values as a nation. There will, I know, be some who say that what I describe as extremism is merely social conservatism. But if others described a woman’s intellect as “deficient”, denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs, or rejected the democratic process, we would quite rightly condemn their bigotry. And there will be others who say I am wrong to link these kinds of beliefs with the violent extremism we agree we must confront. To them I say, yes, not all extremism leads to violence. And not all extremists are violent. But the damage extremists cause to our society is reason enough to act. And there is, undoubtedly, a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes intolerance, hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of those who want to impose their values on us through violence." - Theresa May, Home Secretary

Such moves are extremely worrying. They will stop any dissenting opinion and will impact the nature of debate, discussion, free thought and free speech. It will have knock-on effects for academia, education, entertainment, religious institutions and political discourse. Things have moved from the realm of allowing certain ideas to be frowned upon to making certain ideas unsayable and, in the process, is attempting to make certain thoughts unthinkable. It is without question a totalitarian move by an existent oligarchy. Despite what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have repeatedly tried to claim, this has no place in a free society. It has no place in a liberal democracy. It cannot be squared with the free democratic system that Britain at least claims it wants to remain.

If you are in any way troubled by these moves, I strongly encourage you to make your voice heard here and write to your MP to express your concerns.

Rev Barry Trayhorn forced to resign for quoting Bible in chapel

The salient facts of this case are these:

• HMP Littlehey is a category C men's prison and Young Offender institute in Cambridgeshire. Chapel is entirely voluntary. Nobody is required or forced to attend, sing hymns or listen to scripture.
• Rev Trayhorn is an ordained Pentecostal minister who worked as a gardener at the prison. He has helped out with prison chapel services at the invitation and under the supervision of the coordinating Chaplain, the Rev’d David Kinder, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Forum in the Diocese of Ely.
• Whilst leading worship in chapel in May 2014 Rev Trayhorn quoted the passage 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (the quoted version is unknown).
• Four days later, a complaint was lodged against Rev Trayhorn. He was immediately suspended from helping with chapel services, and was subsequently told that his comments during the service were ‘homophobic’ and breached national prison policy.
• Rev Trayhorn was informed a disciplinary hearing would follow. He was subsequently signed off work with a stress related illness. During this time, his manager visited him three times at home to discuss work-related issues. On two of those occasions, a senior prison official was present.
• On 4th November 2014, Rev Trayhorn felt that he had no choice but to resign. Two days later, a disciplinary hearing was held in his absence, when he was given a ‘final written warning’.
• Rev Trayhorn, backed by the Christian Legal Centre, is now taking HMP Littlehey to an employment tribunal where he is claiming he was forced out of his main paid job as a gardener at the jail because of the intimidation he suffered as a result of his faith.

Several things are worthy of note and a few comments seem necessary.

First, as the Archbishop Cranmer blog notes, Rev Trayhorn's claim is not entirely unreasonable. For "it was not Barry Trayhorn’s skills as a paid gardener which had been called into question, but his competence to lead worship as an unpaid chaplain’s assistant." By all accounts, Rev Trayhorn's gardening skills have not entered into any discussion and there has been no complaint received over his horticultural prowess. It does, therefore, appear very much as though his quote from the Bible has directly led to the loss of his job as gardener.

Second, Rev Trayhorn received a final written warning at a disciplinary hearing in his absence. Again, as noted by Cranmer, given his gardening skills were not under scrutiny and he had "no previous misdemeanours or complaints recorded against him, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was disciplined for quoting scriptures about sin which were deemed unpalatable by sinners."

Third, it seems worth pointing out that Rev Trayhorn did not major on sexual sin at the expense of other forms of sin. It does appear his quote includes the sexually immoral (that is the heterosexual immoral as the verse also goes on to mention those who practice homosexuality), idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. Across the range of those sins, and in line with traditional evangelical thought, the list takes aim at just about all people everywhere. It is a more extensive list of Paul's basic comment in Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Fourth, Rev Trayhorn was not disciplined for offering a particular interpretive view of the verses quoted. In fact, the man only went on to say "the Christian message [is] that God will forgive those who repent." It is, therefore, highly likely that Rev Trayhorn was disciplined specifically for quoting directly from the Bible.

All of this adds up to the ludicrous position that suggests it is now a felony to state the Bible's ethical teaching to convicted felons. It is equally ridiculous that prisoners, many of whom have been incarcerated for heinous sexual crimes which both the penal system and wider society recognise as ethically wrong, can claim offence at the biblical position (which is in agreement with both the penal system and wider society on this issue) and make a felon out of the man who dared quote it. Truly this is a nonsense.

Aside from all of this, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that significant portions of the Bible are now prohibited for public proclamation. We are censoring the ethical teachings of a book that played a central role in forming the ethical standard by which our own penal system abides. We are deeming a book that was, until very recently, a central part of school daily assemblies and a copy of which was given to every hotel room in the land to be incompatible with nebulous "British values" which, if they even exist at all, have been drawn from the selfsame source.

Most troubling of all, we already know about the government's plans to crack down on "extremism in all its forms" (see here, here and here etc). It seems quite clear that ill-defined "British values" must be pressed into every sphere of British public and private life. Anything that does not accord with them will be clamped down. The Home Secretary has already made it clear that those who speak against orthodox cultural utterances stand to lose charitable status and assets such as privately held buildings and cash funds. Some evangelical preachers who pose no physical threat to anybody - regardless of whether you agree with their position or the way in which they communicate it - have begun to feel the force of these measures (eg here).

And this seems to be yet another case of it happening. The chapel at HMP Littlehey is neither a public space nor a mandatory requirement for all prisoners. It is attended voluntarily and nobody is forced to partake in worship or to listen to God's word against their will. It is, therefore, utterly incredible that the Bible can be censored during a private meeting of Christian worship. Whilst this particular case beggars belief, it is all the more troubling that what is happening in HMP Littlehey and has already reached into some private meeting houses, will increasingly impede the public reading of God's word and the clear proclamation and explanation of what it contains in more and more churches. 

Measures intended to impede acts of terrorism and those propagating such acts are increasingly being used against all manner of political protesters and benign religious groups who pose no physical threat to anybody but who nonetheless do not assent to cultural orthodoxy. The measures are politically obtuse and utterly cowardly. For it seems clear enough that to avoid being seen to target one particular religious group, all people of faith - regardless of what they actually teach and believe or their propensity to call for the death of the infidel - are embroiled in a war against one small group, within one particular strain, of one particular branch of one particular religion. By any measure, it is not fair, it is not equitable, it is not reasonable and it should not stand.

Why the Christian has nothing to fear in Halloween

I posted yesterday, for those who were worried about such things, about why ghosts and ghouls most definitely do not exist. But, of course, there are plethora of monsters the likes of which the Bible doesn't give such clear reason to believe don't exist. And then there's all the scary stuff the Bible does talk about. Though ghosts and ghouls may not be real, are there things - in the realm of the seen or unseen - of which we should be frightened? Let me give you a few reasons to put your mind at ease.

The Bible is clear there is one thing alone to be feared

Both Matthew and Luke make clear that there is but one thing to be feared above all else:

“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!" - Luke 12:4f

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matthew 10:28

As the writer to the Hebrews says: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." For, as he says earlier in the letter, "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement" (Hebrews 9:27).

In Jesus, the Christian has no need to fear the judgement

The apostle John tells us clearly enough that in Jesus there is no fear of God. He says:

15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgement, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. (1 John 4:15-18).

If we abide in God, his love is perfected within us so that we can have confidence on the day of judgement. If fear of judgement has to do with punishment, if we abide in God we have no fear of such punishment on the day of judgement.

Paul, who obviously got the same memo, says this: "there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). Similarly, Isaiah 43:1 says “But now, this is what the Lord says…Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.”

Taken together with Matthew and Luke's earlier statements, the Christian can say along with the Psalmist “The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life—of whom shall I be afraid?” (Psalm 27:1).

In Jesus, the Christian has no need to fear outside powers

Both Jesus (Matthew 6:25-34) and Paul (Philippians 4:6) command us not to be anxious or worry. Though many would say that is easier said than done, the Christian has very real grounds to not be impeded by such things.

For a start, Paul emphatically makes the point in Romans 8:38f:

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Peter also tells us to cast our anxiety onto God "because he cares for you" (1 Peter 5:7). So nothing can separate us from God's love with which he cares for us. As a sovereign God with all things in his hand, this means our worries and anxieties can really be given over to him in a meaningful way.

Paul really lays it on thick in Ephesians 1 when he says:

that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:18-23).

You cannot fail to miss the central point: Christ is "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion... in this age... [and] the one to come." There is nothing for the Christian to fear in Christ because he is over all. All things have been put under his feet. That is surely a God on whom we can cast all our cares and anxieties, wherever they come from.

Knowing a little something about the magic and cultic practices in Ephesus at this time only lends further weight to Paul's point. Ephesus was awash with pagan practices, magic and mystery cults, mantras, spells, charms and the rest. The Ephesian believers were constantly pulled toward such things (e.g. Acts 19:13-20). Paul's concern was to make abundantly clear that there is no power, ruler, dominion or authority - whether physical or spiritual - that can surpass the ultimate rule of Jesus Christ. Paul is equally clear that the believer shares in his rule and has that same power at work in them (cf. Eph 2:6; 3:16, 19f). It is for this reason the believer has nothing to fear in Christ.

All of this leads to the conclusion that in Christ, the Christian has nothing to fear. So whether your view of Halloween is that it is really dangerous or a bit of fun; whether you see the monsters and ghouls as synonymous with the evil Spirits Paul warns about or you think them jejune anachronisms; Paul is clear that the believer has nothing to fear in such things. Christ is above all, ruling with power that exceeds all. In Christ, the believer has no need to worry because that same power is at work in us.

So whether you decide to shun Halloween, redeem it with a nicer alternative or you choose to be part of it like the rest of our culture, the biblical takeaway is: do not fear. In Christ, you are safe, secure and one with the ruler who is above all things. Take courage.

Worried about Halloween ghosts? Never fear, here's why they definitely don't exist

For those of a sensitive disposition, Halloween can be a troublesome time of year. It is a celebration of all things ghoulish and creepy and a wonder that it passes as a culturally acceptable form of fun aimed at children. For a range of views on how Christians should approach Halloween, you can read Canon J. John outline his problems with Halloween here. Glen Scrivener explains (in very different form) why he has no particular issue with Halloween here and here. For a third opinion, you can hear (or read) John Piper's view here.

It isn't my aim to speak into the rights and wrongs of Halloween here. I shall leave you to follow the various links and make up your own mind. I want to offer a little succour to the frightened and scared. To that end, if you find yourself frightened of things that go bump in the night, let me offer you a few reasons why ghosts and ghouls definitely do not exist.

Before some smart aleck asks "what about the Holy Ghost/Spirit?" let us define our terms. I am using the word 'ghost' to mean the wandering spirits of the dead. I mean what most psychics and mediums mean by the term: departed souls who have not found rest. That is spirits of once living people who now float around in some netherworld occasionally appearing to living people or chucking things around rooms.

So how can I be so sure ghosts and ghouls absolutely do not exist? Here are a few reasons:

After death comes judgement

The writer of Hebrews makes it quite clear: "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement" (Heb 9:27). If there is a judgement after death, it seems pretty obvious that there are no people left hanging. The idea that there may be some departed souls who never quite made it to the other side doesn't account for the fact that all people will stand before almighty God and give an account of their life. Unless God has appointed wandering the earth without rest as one of the possible outcomes of judgement, there can be no such things as the ghosts of departed spirits wandering the earth.

God has not appointed wandering the earth as a possible consequence of judgement

The parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30) makes pretty clear there are two possible outcomes in the judgement. If we take the fairly obvious interpretation that the wheat are those who belong to Christ and the tares are those who reject him, one is either gathered into the Lord's barn (Heaven) or put into bundles to be burned (Hell). If you're not sold on the imagery, the apostle John puts it in starker terms in Revelation 20:11-15 (note especially v15). If there are only two possible consequences following the judgement, the idea of wandering souls roaming the earth is rather discounted.

After judgement, there can be no return to earth

As the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) makes clear, those who have been appointed to Heaven or Hell cannot return to the world after judgement. So even if we wanted to accept the possibility that, having been judged and appointed to either Heaven or Hell, one might return to the land of the living (à la Hamlet's father), the bible simply doesn't allow the possibility. The concept of returning to earth after judgement is foreign to anything we read in the Bible.

How should Christians respond to Socialism? A response to John Piper

In his latest ask pastor John podcast, John Piper answered a question in relation to the ongoing political campaign of Bernie Sanders. I suppose it was inevitable that a renowned evangelical pastor, in a country noted for its links between evangelicalism and right-wing politics, would eventually be asked a question about a high profile politician, currently in the public spotlight, who identifies as socialist (of one sort or another). 

Socialism has always been something of an uncomfortable political bedfellow for a country close to a rabid phobia of state involvement in anything. So an American evangelical answering the question 'how should Christians think about socialism?' was never likely to end in unmitigated endorsement. And whilst it is true that no political system will ever be perfect, and certainly no political system will ever fully align with scripture (and scripture was never intended to make one do so), let me explain why I disagree with pastor John.

Before I go on, I should point out that I have been here before. In response to a post by John Stevens, National Director of the FIEC, some years ago I outlined why I disagreed with his position on socialism (and, therefore, by extension with Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus). You can read that article here. I am an FIEC pastor and I really like John. I often read his blog and find his posts quite insightful and helpful. Likewise, I've found much of what Wayne Grudem has written highly valuable and helpful. And, in the same vein, I like John Piper too. I find his writing and preaching usually very helpful, he is theologically excellent and he is a huge asset to the church (as are these other men too).

First, let me highlight where I agree with Piper. His opening salvo regarding the church - "in the church no one should go hungry. In the church no one should be without a place to stay..." etc - is spot on. His closing line in that very same paragraph, that within the church all this should be without compulsion, is absolutely correct. Nobody should be under any doubt that the church ought to be generous and giving without coercion and force. I can also agree that Acts 2:44-45 is not an example of the early church being demanded to give to those in need. There was no compulsion, just a heart changed by God's Spirit. Beyond this, Piper is quite right that "thou shalt not steal" does indeed indicate the ability to keep what is yours and Paul does emphasise cheerfully giving, freely and not under duress (cf. 2 Cor 8-9). I basically agree with Piper's view on funding state churches (if not entirely for the reasons he intimates).

Here, however, is where I think Piper goes astray. He argues that socialism either (1) establishes legal, government or military coercion to establish social ownership at the expense of private ownership; or, (2) uses coercion to establish social control — if not ownership, at least control of the means of production in society. He goes on to state "And thus, through control, you effectively eliminate many of the implications and motivations of private ownership."

Now this errs in presuming that scripture demands private ownership. Yes, scripture presumes the existence of private ownership, but it never suggests that it is inherently good or the fundamental basis of state economics. Equally, Piper errs in presuming that socialism stands against all forms of private ownership. I see no reason to believe either of those presumptions are necessarily true. 

A further problem with Piper's answer is that his application of the above verses rule out taxation and state funding for just about anything. If giving freely is the driving principle then, by definition, all forms of taxation and state intervention are out of the question. This means no governance, no military spending, no forms of revenue. The logical conclusion renders the national coffers the equivalent of a charity living on sporadic handouts at the whim of the people. All giving must be free and not done out of compulsion. Even the right-wing social conservative Peter Hitchens recognises this principle (see here at 4:40 as an example). As he says: "every state has to intervene in something. Once you've decided you must intervene to create a navy, then you've pretty much sold the principle".

Moreover, whilst I agree with Piper's view on the giving in Acts 2:42-43, it is a category error to apply it to politics and economic systems. It is interesting to me that, when the Spirit is at work amongst a true community of believers, things appear very much more socialist than capitalist. However, that is not a basis for arguing these verses represent some sort of socialist manifesto. These verse clearly describe the Spirit at work within a community of believers and we cannot simply apply it to political and economic systems on the world stage. For exactly the same reason I do not think 2 Corinthians 8-9 can be applied to world economic systems, the principle of generous, free giving would be a similar category mistake. Paul is talking about giving within the community of believers. He is talking about what should happen amongst those who have been made regenerate toward other Christian people in need. He is not talking about what should happen at a governmental level or within economic systems.

Piper moves on and takes aim at the economic system of Denmark and others in Europe, arguing that over half those who live in such places live off the state in some way. He simply states this as negative without giving any grounds for why this really represents a problem biblically (save his spurious logic outlined above). By all means make a case - as he goes on to imply - that there are economic problems with socialism (such as you believe them to exist). What seems specious is to suggest that biblical descriptors of what ought to happen within the church should define what happens at a state economic level.

Now, there are some biblical principles and doctrines that ought to be brought to boot on this discussion. First, as I argued here, tax is not inherently unbiblical. It does not amount to state theft and it is not akin to sin. Both Jesus (Mk 12:17) and Paul (Rom 13:6f) make that clear enough. If tax amounts to state theft and/or sin, then Jesus and Paul are clearly encouraging all believers to participate in sin. It is evidently not the case that is what they are doing. To quote Peter Hitchens, if you take Jesus' and Paul's points, "then you've pretty much sold the principle". Ergo, far from being sinful, taxation can indeed be a force for good.

Second, let's refer back to Piper's reference of Acts 2:42-43. It is clear enough that this is what happens when the Spirit is at work in God's people. Free, generous giving without the need for compulsion. The question is, what do we do for those who are not so indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Are we likely to see widespread, free giving without compulsion. Years of Western capitalism, which allows the rich to keep much of their money, rather suggests not. Even in America, where there is more of a culture of charitable giving, even the slightest probing makes clear enough this is to avoid losing more money through taxation! It is not charitable like Acts 2, it is a selfish bid to avoid such charity!

It is theologically and empirically obtuse to presume that making a few people very rich will work for the benefit of all. James 2:6f makes the case clearly enough. The doctrine of total depravity also speaks against the idea that the unregenerate would likely give their money away simply out of the generosity of their own hearts. If James, along with the doctrine of total depravity, suggest individuals may need some encouragement in helping their fellow man, and it be not sinful to implement taxation, it follows that taxation as a means of helping the poor is a thoroughly biblically consistent position. Moreover, if scripture obligates the believer to care for the poor and needy (e.g. here and here) and the above means are not sinful, it strikes me as thoroughly reasonable to campaign for a high tax, redistributive system as an excellent means to care for the less fortunate. The Christians, campaigning for higher taxes on themselves as a means of achieving these ends, seems to be perfectly consistent with these biblical imperatives.

Free market capitalism makes no credible allowance for total depravity and inculcates greed as its very motivating force. It allows the rich to remain rich and does nothing, ultimately or inherently by the very nature of the system, to help the poor. Indeed, untrammelled free market capitalism uses sin to motivate and does nothing to encourage the biblical imperatives to have an eye for the poor, needy and less fortunate. If nothing else, socialism at least attempts to address the very problems the bible considers problems. It, contrary to popular belief, actually takes better account of total depravity than does the capitalist system. It is no coincidence that the Socialism of the British Labour movement was started by a Scottish lay preacher and built on the back of Welsh Methodism. Free market capitalism can hardly be said to have been borne out of any adherence to biblical principles. 

As Piper rightly notes, "every economic and political system will eventually collapse where there are insufficient moral impulses to restrain human selfishness and encourage honesty and good deeds even when no one is watching." It strikes me that capitalism makes no effort to address either of those issue. It rather hopes for a 'trickle down' effect (or a work of the Holy Spirit to give them a heart to share aright). A presumption that the rich will try to hoard their money necessitates a system that redistributes their wealth (total depravity nigh on demands it for the unregenerate). Given that politics cannot instil a work of grace, you tell me, dear reader, how Christians ought to respond to socialism.

What Labour Party divisions can teach church denominations

Yesterday, The Guardian reported that over 50 Labour MPs plan to defy Jeremy Corbyn's stance on a British military intervention in Syria. The Labour leader has made no secret of his opposition to a bombing campaign. Corbyn's supporters, such as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, have gone on record backing his stance. They too reject a bombing campaign, with Abbott in particular vociferous in her criticism of those who plan to defy the party leader. What is abundantly clear is that not all those who belong to the Labour Party reside within the same political camp as their current head.

The parallels with the Church are striking. For not all those who associate with the Church belong in the same camp as its head. Both Jesus (cf. Mt 7:21-23) and Peter (cf. 2 Pet 2:1-3) make this clear enough. Jesus tells us that we will recognise those who are his by the fruit expressed in their lives (Mt 7:15-20). Elsewhere, the fruit that Jesus expects is clear enough: "if you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The one who is the head of the church expects those who really belong to the church to actually keep his commands.

Hand wringing by centrist MPs over whether to remain in the Labour Party are reminiscent of various internal denominational battles between theologically conservative and liberal wings. Significant internal differences within the denominations have been dealt with in a variety of ways; from the perennial splits upon splits within Presbyterianism to the staunch refusal to leave the Church of England despite fundamental, insurmountable differences between those who purport to have communion. Other denominations have worked such things through in a plethora of different ways, from complete isolationism to an emphasis on non-denominational gospel partnerships.

Until the Labour Party can form a direction around which the MPs will unite, it will continue to face these same problems over and again. Likewise, though a wholly pure church is the world of fantasy, churches would do well to heed the lessons being played out in Labour Party politics. Denominations, gospel partnerships and associations can only press forward when those seeking to work together are united in purpose and agree on certain core beliefs and values. Without such agreement, partnerships and denominations will forever find themselves unable to move forward. Jesus said something like that (cf. Mark 3:24f).

O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!

Freedom and liberty, the clarion calls of those who typically abuse the very things they claim to defend. The news is awash with yet another American mass shooting. President Obama makes his 15th statement about shootings since he took office. He once again makes a plea for tighter gun controls. The usual suspects reply with their standard cry. In the name of freedom, people continue to be killed all the day long.

It is a gross act of sin to use the cause of freedom to persist with a situation that continuously and repeatedly leads to death. Just as the those on the right would (rightly) have no truck with arguments that rely on freedom to continue the systematic destruction of children in utero, the call for tighter gun controls are no less unimpressed with arguments from freedom while people are being repeatedly killed. While human beings are dying, using freedom and liberty as the basis for letting it continue is nothing short of iniquitous.

This side of the pond, where we have never quite had the same national obsession with personal armaments, may seem easy. The Dunblane massacre in 1996 was the impetus to introduce two firearms Acts which effectively banned the private ownership of handguns. However, even prior to the mid-90s, it was not exactly the norm to own a gun. Nevertheless, this same approach to freedom exists as much here as it does in the US. Our approach to abortion rights is often based on this same spurious reasoning and our recent national debate on the 'right to die' also leaned heavily on such arguments. Though it may not be gun control, we are not immune from the questionable application of freedom despite the obvious, dangerous and highly troubling effects on the people.

As Christians, we don't always stand apart from this specious reasoning either. Yes, we may oppose abortion and euthanasia, we may be pro-gun controls, yet this same tendency can exist in Christian circles too. It is called antinomianism. There can be an insistence upon freedom despite the fact that, in the name of the freedom we proclaim, people are lost. In the name of freedom in Christ, gross acts of sin are justified because "we're free". Freedom once again becomes a call from those who, frankly, want to abuse the freedom that is theirs in Christ. By abusing freedom this way, many who think they are safe remain lost in their sin. Christ did not win our freedom so that we may carry on as before. Our freedom in Christ is not a freedom to ignore his commands and continue in our sin. We have been freed from sin in Christ. To carry on sinning, and to use this hard won freedom as the basis to do so, is the most offensive way to treat Jesus. 

Freedom is a most important civil liberty that must be defended. It is a most important Christian concept that must be defended theologically. However, using freedom as a basis to defend/reject law that was intended to protect the individual, is nothing short of perverse. It doesn't matter whether we are talking civil liberty or Christian liberty, freedom is not there to the detriment of the life of the people. Anyone arguing otherwise has neither stared down the barrel of a gun nor come to terms with the doctrine of Hell.

VW and how to really generate lower pollutants

You will almost certainly have come across the latest scandal involving the German car manufacturer Volkswagon. What broke as a story in the USA is now being followed into Europe and the rest of the world. The company fitted 'defeat devices' to their cars which cause the vehicles to cheat the diesel emissions tests. The company admit that around 11m vehicles worldwide have been fitted with such devices. Since allegations emerged, around 40% has fallen off the VW share price, the affected cars will have to be recalled and refitted at a cost of £4.2bn and the company is also facing further fines of £11.9bn.

The point of gaming the tests this way was so VW could offer cars with low emissions. The low emissions meant a low tax option for buyers. The problem with many low emission vehicles is what they lack in pollutants they also lack in performance. The defeat device recognised test conditions and ran the car engine at a below normal level of power and performance. When the test was over, the car returned to normal levels. This meant the company appeared to offer low emission diesel cars that lacked nothing in the power and performance department. In reality, it meant VW cars emitted nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above the legal US limit.

In Matthew 15:10-20 Jesus spoke about what pollutes people:

what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

If they are the things that defile us before God, hear what Jesus has to say about those who only appear great under test conditions:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:27f)

Things appear OK outwardly but inwardly they are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. Claiming to be clean when, in reality, they are dirty and full of law-breaking levels of  pollutants. Both hypocrisy and lawlessness in one. Sounds like VW. Sounds worryingly like many Christian people too. Sounds rather like me much of the time. Perhaps even sounds a little like you?

The human heart isn't unlike a VW engine. Under test conditions, we seem to operate pretty well. We can sense when people are looking and precisely what they are looking for. Our performance under test - our attendance at church, our public Christian face, our evangelistic efforts - all seem to stack up pretty well. And yet, many of us, when we're back under normal conditions may be emitting many more pollutants than tests seemed to show.

The apostle John puts it well when in 1 John 1:8-10 he says this:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

A pretence that we have no sin means that we remain in sin itself. But, if we confess our sin - in other words, if we cease being hypocrites, own our sin and seek the forgiveness that is found in Christ alone - then he is faithful to forgive and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As long as we keep trying to game the tests, our sin and the just punishment it deserves will remain our own. Only when we cease being hypocrites, admit our sin and turn to the only saviour able to deal with do we stand any chance of becoming low emission polluters.

The problem with our fellowship and four ways to improve it

If there is a song that sums up visiting certain new churches, Pop Song 89 by REM does a pretty good job.

It's a sort of stilted conversation that sadly seems to take place all too often. We so rarely have much to say to visitors (or, dare I say, regular members) that efforts to be friendly, and it does so often feel like effort, descend into this type of thing.

If we think REM lay it on thick, The Smith's How Soon is Now cuts rather closer to the bone:

Though the song revolves around the chronic shyness of the protagonist (the existence of such people many churches have yet to wake up to and simply don't know how to handle them), the following lyrics capture the experience of many:


"There's a club if you'd like to go you could meet somebody who really loves you so you go, and you stand on your own and you leave on your own and you go home, and you cry and you want to die."

This experience extends well beyond the four walls of church buildings. Countless similar stories float around Christian conferences, fraternals and other inter-church gatherings. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people tell me how lonely they feel at such meetings and events. Sometimes the loneliest place in the world is amongst a crowd of other people.

I recall being invited to one meeting, entering the room, standing like a total lemon on my own whilst everybody else "networked" around me. I tried to engage a few folk in conversation where it was clear that talking to this no-mark oik - who was unlikely to do anything to advance their standing within the Christian world - was not high on their agenda. I found myself going and standing on my own, leaving on my own, going home and wanting to cry. It is made so much worse when one thinks these people should know better. Among Christians, especially among Christian leaders, these things should not be.

There is clearly nothing wrong with seeking beneficial links and finding other like-minded people with whom we can work together. In fact, the Bible encourages such things. But all too often, it descends into mere networking - akin to some professional business meeting - and becomes more about what is useful to me rather than mutual support and encouragement. In the worst cases, it becomes little more than crass self-advancement. How many links can I make? How much can I make of myself? If you are a "big name" I will make every effort to speak to you, if you are unknown you are not worthy of my time.

As a pastor, an inherent part of my job is meeting new people. It is networking, making connections with others, getting to know other ministers and Christian workers. In all honesty, it is a side of my job for which I feel ill-equipped and I do not relish. Not that I don't like meeting new people, or making new friends, or working together with others (I do) but I really struggle in this environment. It makes me feel uncomfortable and clashes with both my inherent introversion and my upbringing which emphasised never pushing oneself forward (1). It is only once I have warmed up to people, once we have gotten to know one another a little better, that I begin to feel comfortable and more able to be myself.

Whether at big conferences, fraternals, inter-church meetings, gospel partnerships or ordinary church meetings, here are four basic things we can all do to make our fellowship a bit better.

First, don't just speak to those who can do something for you. This includes only talking to new people so you can be spotted by your elders and leaders. Visitors and congregants are not there so you can clock when the pastor is watching so you'll be in line for that leadership position that just opened up. James certainly has something to say about preferring some people over others. Our friendliness, our help and our interest should not be partial. Talking to those who can do nothing for us is just as important as speaking to those who can. Our churches, denominations, fraternals and conferences are not just there for our own empire building projects. Nor are they there for our own personal advancement. If Christ died for you despite you being unable to do anything for him, we should be prepared to take an interest in those who can do nothing for us.

Second, take a real interest in the people to whom you speak. Just because you avoid the trap of ignoring those who can do nothing for you doesn't inoculate us against against the problem of showing absolutely no interest in them. Saying "hello" and having a conversation is of no value if we clearly aren't interested. If we look around the room for others to speak with, or are even as crass as to say, "I really want to talk to the elder/pastor/speaker" (as has happened on more than one occasion, in more than one church, to me), then our conversation will not give the impression we are bothered.

Third, don't just palm the person you are talking to off on someone else unless you really are committed to something else. Nothing says "I'm not interested" faster than a few cold nods and an immediate "have you met John?" Of course, there are times when we really do have other things that absolutely need to be done. But apologising, explaining and then introducing them to someone else will help far more than simply palming them off with no explanation. And no, wanting to talk to someone else more than the person you are speaking to, does not count as something more pressing!

Four, talk about things that actually matter. I have never been much of one for small talk. It is, for want of a better word, small. I am more interested in big things and enjoy talking to people who want to discuss big things too. I warm very quickly to people who are happy to jump straight to the big, weighty things. I suspect most others find superficiality a little dissatisfying too. By big things, I don't just mean weighty matters of theology, philosophy and politics (though they are big things that interest me). I mean talking with people about the big things that matter to them, whatever those things may be. To quote REM "should we talk about the weather" isn't really what it's all about.

Notes

1. To push yourself forward was (rightly or wrongly) often associated with arrogance. I suspect there is often a class thing going on too with middle class folk seemingly far more comfortable taking the initiative than me (I prefer to doff my cap and keep quiet)

The tyranny of liberalism inculcates illiberal counter-extremism measures

If you cannot conceive why so many people are pleased that Jeremy Corbyn has won the Labour leadership election, the reasons are plethora. One major factor is the sense that the party will now undo decades of vacuous New Labour policy which has dragged the party further to the right and away from its founding principles. Another reason is the tyranny of liberalism that began in the New Labour era and has been perpetuated by the so called "heir to Blair". It is telling that both the left-wing of the Labour Party and the right-wing of the Conservative Party have both been the most vociferous defenders of civil liberties in the face of this oppressive centrism that so lauds the values of tolerance and acceptance that it simultaneously denies anyone the right to disagree with its moral pronouncements (which, ironically, it claims is grounded in no set of morals at all!)

This centrist tyrannical liberalism is the epitome of amorality and illiberality. I have far more time for moral and social Conservatives, who actually ground their beliefs in a set of moral principles and a proper understanding of what it is to be a liberal society, than I have for this vacuous centrism. Likewise traditional Socialist values - especially those grounded in the Christian Socialist tradition - have always made their arguments in moral terms. The very term liberalism, and the supposed post-war liberal consensus, once meant defining particular rights and allowing all such practices that do not impinge thereon. These rights were once determined from accepted moral values. However, these terms have come to mean a set of moral statements, without any underpinning moral framework, which must be upheld at all costs. All dissenting opinion will not be tolerated and must be quashed. What once stood for inherent freedom for the individual has come to mean cultural oppression. What claims to be a stand for tolerance is, in actual fact, the refusal to tolerate anything else.

This troubling tendency of the last three decades was perfectly illustrated by a report in yesterday's Telegraph. The report opens with the ominous words:

Imams, priests, rabbis and other religious figures will have to enrol in a “national register of faith leaders” and be subject to government-specified training and security checks in the Home Office’s latest action on extremism.

The report claimed:

Whitehall will “require all faiths to maintain a national register of faith leaders” and the Government will “set out the minimum level of training and checks” faith leaders must have to join the new register.

In short, the proposal demands leaders within all faiths become state registered with the state determining the minimum level of training required to fulfil their job requirements.

There are several things to note about this. Firstly, this is being driven through as part of the government's latest round of anti-extremism measures. Once again, in the name of security, age old civil liberties, such as freedom of religion, are being eroded. It is shocking to see a supposedly liberal government enacting a policy that is worryingly similar to that of the Communist regime in China.

Second, it cannot fail to escape anybody's notice that anti-extremism measures and counter-terror legislation were introduced as a result of 9/11, 7/7 and other more recent atrocities. We have been well acquainted with terrorism in Western Europe for well over a century (cf. IRA and its offshoots; UDA, UVF and their offshoots; ETA; Terra Lliure et al). It is clear enough that the increase in such legislation is not a result of such groups. This legislation has been a result of particular terrorist activities which comes from one particular source. It is specifically a response to Islamist terrorism (or Jihadism).

All sensible observers recognise Islam comes in a range of forms, going well beyond Sunni and Shia branches. It should be clear to even the most casual observer that Islam is not one monolithic bloc and clearly most Muslims do not subscribe to Islamist terrorism nor even the Salafi strain of Sunni Islam. Nonetheless, we cannot ignore the glaringly obvious fact that the major threat of terrorist activity in recent decades has come from these pernicious forms  of Muslim thought. It is in response to this particular form of terrorism that anti-terror and anti-extremist legislation - however well thought through or otherwise - has been introduced.

What is most troubling is that this latest attempt at anti-extremist legislation should include those of "all faiths". How many reform Jews have we heard of jumping onto buses and blowing themselves up? How many rabbis have we heard encouraging such behaviour or encouraging British citizens to kill in the name of the Israeli state? We are not hearing of swathes of Sikhs using their (legally permitted) kirpan to strike fear into the heart of British society. Militant Hindus (though some certainly exist on the Indian sub-continent) are not the subject of major police counter-terror initiatives. Christian leaders are not encouraging their communicants to attack the infidel. Why, then, are "all faiths" always found subject to measures designed to target one particular group of people, within one particular branch, of one particular religion?

Are the government truly trying to argue that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, taking a traditional line on heterosexual marriage is akin to Salafi Jihadism? Is it really the case that evangelical street preachers pose a similar threat to national security as those who seek to intentionally blow themselves up in the name of martyrdom? Are orthodox Jews really the same threat to British culture as those who actively proclaim allegiance to the Islamic State?

If this is a problem confined to one particular religion, it is highly unreasonable to use this as a catch-all way to extend these rules to all religions. If it is unfair to tarnish all Muslims with the same brush - knowing, as I do, many Imams and Muslim parents who are terrified that their own children may buy into these pernicious extremist ideologies, it most certainly is - how much less fair is it to include those who don't even subscribe to the wider religion in question? It seems that government are pressing on with this approach because they do not want to be seen attacking Islam alone. But there simply is no escaping that it is not the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhist who are having any effect on the British terror threat level. Until such time as we accept the source of the problem, we will continue to be hit with these cack-handed attempts to address the problem.

Third, this sort of approach does absolutely nothing to address the root problem. The issues that government are (rightly) concerned about are terrorist activities and the incitement to violence. Sadly, the government have extended their attempts to to deal with these two issues to anything deemed "extremist". Quite apart from failing to define nebulous "British values" and defining extremism as anything which doesn't accord with them, this does nothing to address the root of the problem. As noted by Haras Rafiq - director of the counter-extremism think tank Quilliam - "“It is very noticeable that the main Islamist groups are not really up in arms about this. They want it, because it will feed the narrative of grievance and victimhood they love. They will be able to use it to say, ‘look, we told you so’.” We have moved from trying to stop people breaking the law, and actively damaging others, to trying to inculcate views and values by diktat.

Fourth, this approach goes against anything that can be considered tolerable in a free and liberal society. It is the outworking of precisely the issue noted at the beginning of this post. It is the tyranny of liberalism that cannot cope with permitting views outside of the cultural zeitgeist. Extremism is being defined in this case as a refusal to push "British values". As noted on the blog before (here and here), British values seem to be defined as a refusal to actively promote current cultural views on issues such as homosexuality, gay marriage and the ever-slippery value of tolerance (without tolerating religious views, of course!) In the name of counter-extremism, religious adherents and faith leaders who have otherwise lived in the UK for centuries without such interference by the state are now being subject to measures that would in any other area be considered draconian, authoritarian and illiberal. If such measure were enacted within politics because of the actions of certain political terrorist organisation within our midst, people would rightly be up in arms. When it comes to issues of religious belief, it does seem the same criteria are not applied.

This tyranny of liberalism began under the New Labour era and has been continued under David Cameron's Conservative rule. I have written to my local MP - a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn - regarding several recent troubling announcements from Theresa May's office. He has given assurance, in no uncertain terms and without usual political obfuscation, that he has the same concerns and in no way supports the measures. I understand Jeremy Corbyn similarly recognises the issue and rejects this approach. If you are wondering why I am pleased Jeremy Corbyn has won the Labour leadership, this is no small factor.

For my part, I will not submit to any national register. I will not permit the state to determine what I teach in my own church. I will not allow the state to interfere with what scripture clearly teaches. I will not allow my sermons and studies to be vetted. I refuse to be deemed a threat to state security simply because I do not always agree with the prevalent government agenda. I am not prepared to be subjected to statist, Communist-style interference and I will not subject my church communicants and congregants to the vacuous homilies permitted in accordance with the whims of the government of the day. One hopes and prays there are enough sensible voices in parliament to recognise precisely why.