Phill Sacre

Tag: society

  • How do we heal society?

    How do we heal society?

    Earlier today I watched a fascinating interview with Laurence Fox on Triggernometry. It was an interesting interview, talking about many of the problems going on at the moment in society. I don’t want to get into all the politics and rights and wrongs of what’s happening in society at the moment, but I think many people feel that there is a real sickness and it’s getting worse.

    Konstantin Kisin, one of the interviewers in Triggernometry, said the other day:

    A couple of years ago, I recorded a Christmas message called “Do you fell the shadows deepen?” If that was the case back at the end of 2018, it’s even more the case in mid-2020!

    The most fascinating part of the interview I watched was the part starting at 38 minutes in.

    If you don’t want to watch, here’s a transcript (typed quickly by myself – so might have a few mistakes..)

    Konstantin: I don’t know, man, I want to have an answer. I want to go this is what we do, then this is what we do, then this is what we do. But all I can see now as we look into the future is, how do you stop the violence in the short term? OK, you prevent the protesters from both sides getting together, that’s what you do, right? What do you do after that? What’s the next step?

    Laurence: (Pointing upwards) It’s that one up there I’m afraid, it’s the only answer, whether you believe in it or not, it’s the only answer. Because, what are we gonna come out of this with? We’re certainly not going to come out of the situation we’ve just been through with a great faith in scientists (laughter) … scientists are the new estate agents. People need meaning, right?

    We’ve spent a long time looking to science, we have to turn around and look to the values, the real values society was built on, and those are Judeo-Christian values, and that’s – you’ve gotta look up there, and look at what was said by him and by the people that followed him. That’s what I reckon.

    And that’s not coming from a person who’s profoundly religious. I’m just going, there is a manual, they wrote a book about this before, you know, and try and bring some of those values back. There are very complex things in the Bible which are really tricky to get your head around, and they can educate.

    After that the conversation moved onto other things (although Laurence did briefly return to it later on by talking about Jesus’ words “love your enemies”.

    I find it intriguing that Laurence recognises that what we need is a return to Judeo-Christian values. This is what I think a number of people have begun to realise, including people like Douglas Murray and John Anderson (former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia) – to name but two examples.

    What I want to say is: can you have the fruit of Judeo-Christian values, without the roots of Christianity? Can you have all the good stuff – loving your enemies, for example – without the roots of actually believing in Jesus?

    One of Jesus’ most famous teachings is “love your neighbour as yourself”. A lot of people have heard of that one. What most people don’t know is that this is only the second most important commandment. Let me quote the whole section of the Bible:

    Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’

    Jesus replied: ‘“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.’

    Matthew 22:34-40

    So the first greatest commandment is to love God with everything we have. Now, the question is: can you have the second commandment without the first? Can we really love our neighbour without loving God?

    I think Jesus would say, no, you can’t. That’s because we need his help, we need the kind of love that only he can give. In John 15:5, Jesus says: “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” I’ve been reflecting on those words a lot lately: “apart from me you can do nothing”. Jesus says that we cannot do anything apart from him. The ‘fruit’ that he talks about is the fruit of obedience to God – love.

    Love is not something which we can simply work up in ourselves; it’s something which is given to us by God. If we seek him, he will give it to us.

    Is it really surprising that in a society which ignores and rejects God (like ours), that it doesn’t really love? Is it really surprising that there is so little forgiveness? Is it really surprising that woke heresy hunters are cancelling anyone who doesn’t agree with them? These are the fruits of a society which has turned its back on God.

    So the choice that we face as a society for the road ahead is not between Judeo-Christian values and other values. It’s deeper than that: it’s between seeking God or not seeking him. It’s not what we will choose, but who. Will we choose the Lord who made us?

    if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

    2 Chronicles 7:14

    Postscript

    As Laurence said: “There are very complex things in the Bible which are really tricky to get your head around”. If you’re struggling to make sense of the Bible, do have a look at my website Understand the Bible. It’s dedicated to helping people understand the Bible and the Christian faith from scratch (no prior experience or knowledge required). The course content is all free, there’s even a mobile app you can download to make it easier.

  • Is Secularism ‘neutral’, ‘godless’ – or even possible?

    Image source: Flickr
    Image source: Flickr

    After writing my previous post, I read Gillan’s excellent post over at the God and Politics blog, which I do commend to you. At the bottom of the article, he linked through to an article on the Theos Think Tank website, written by a Christian barrister, entitled “Is Secular Law possible?” I would encourage anyone who has an interest (either positive or negative) in religion in the public sphere to read it. It’s not a short article but it will be well worth your time.

    It basically argues: (1) secularist law – i.e. law which excludes any religious influence – is impossible, but ‘secular’ law (understood correctly) is possible; (2)  secular law is only possible because of Christian foundations in distinguishing between law and morality; (3) secular law is imperative, the idea of limited government logically comes from Christian foundations.

    In these days of alleged ‘militant secularism’, I think it’s high time that these kind of issues got out into the open and were actually discussed rather than simply being assumed. What kind of secular society do we want? I don’t think we want a secular society which can be used as a weapon against religion. To whet your appetite for the article, I’d like to quote from the first section on morality, which puts rather more eloquently what I have said here before:

    (more…)

  • Secularism and Humanitarian Punishment

    Recently, I came across C.S. Lewis’ essay “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. If you’ve not read it, I do recommend it: I think Lewis makes some excellent points about punishment. It makes quite a neat follow-up to my previous post on Atheism Plus and ethics. What I was talking about in that post was personal morality: does atheism have the power to change anyone’s life from bad to good? Does atheism have the power to stop people doing things which are ‘unethical’?

    What I’d like to do in this post is look at the idea of punishment itself. What happens when someone DOES do something considered unethical / wrong, at the level of society? Lewis argues that the traditional idea with respect to punishment is that of retribution: someone has done something wrong, therefore they deserve some kind of punishment. There is a connection between punishment and crime.

    However, what some were arguing back in the 1940s with respect to capital punishment, was that retributive punishment is actually immoral. Lewis outlines the two reasons given for punishment: correction – i.e. to make someone change their behaviour – and deterrent, i.e. making sure that other people don’t follow the same pattern of behaviour. I think the same arguments would probably be applicable today. Where it gets interesting is how Lewis then takes it.

    (more…)

  • Secular Society: A Good Thing?

    I’ve been thinking a bit about the whole ‘militant secularism’ thing recently. If you’ve missed what’s happened, you must have been living under a rock. Or, paying no attention to the news. Either way, there’s been a whole lotta bloggin’ going on about it! This is the news article which kicked it off, although also see my post on healing and the ASA. Also you can read Baroness Warsi’s comments which I think really kicked off usage of the phrase ‘militant secularism’ in the past week or two.

    What I’d like to talk about today is secularism itself: it’s often portrayed as a ‘neutral ground’ where those of all faiths and none can come together and make a stable society where people’s personal beliefs can stay out of the way. Just leave your religious beliefs at home, and there’ll be no problems.

    The problem with that is that I don’t see secularism as ‘neutral ground’: secularism is a belief system too. What I mean by that is, the implicit idea behind secularism is that it’s possible to rightly govern, administer justice, and act ethically without a religious reference point. In other words, in this country at least, essentially secularism is equal to atheism.

    The problem with that – with respect to the governance of this (or any) country, is that I think theism in general and Christianity in particular provides the only sound, rational foundation for any kind of ethical system. As such, what the secularists or atheists want to claim – that the country would be better off if we dispensed with the religious element in leadership – is simply not true.

    Let me try and explain: in atheism, you don’t have many options for morality. I’ve heard a few different explanations, including reading an interview with Richard Dawkins the other day when he explains that morality comes from the cultural ‘Zeitgeist‘ (his word) – in other words, what people think is right and wrong at the time. But the general principle is that there is nothing objectively right and wrong – in other words, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ are simply labels which we have almost arbitrarily come to define in a certain way. That definition may well change in the future.

    So to take an example, in some Islamic countries I understand a woman may be stoned to death if she is caught in adultery. Is that a moral or an immoral action? It seems to be the cultural ‘Zeitgeist’; it’s the law of the land – the punishment is not hidden. In other words, I can’t see how an atheist could say, with all integrity, that that was a wrong or immoral action. Now if that’s not an immoral action… what’s to stop the same thing happening in this country (UK)?

    Similarly, in this country: for a long period of time (c. 8-900 years), kings and rulers have been under the same law as everyone else. In other words, all are treated equally according to the law (in theory, at least). Why should that be so? The original reason given was Genesis 1:27 – everyone is created in the image of God, and therefore everyone deserves to be treated equally. This isn’t an obvious idea – just look at the history books, look around at the world, to see that this is not so.

    I believe that something underpins morality, and that something is the Christian God. There are no two ways about it.

    This is what Dorothy L. Sayers saw clearly in her essay ‘Creed or Chaos?‘ (originally from 1940, the reference to Germany is to the Nazi party):

    We on our side have been trying for several centuries to uphold a particular standard of ethical values which derives from Christian dogma, while gradually dispensing with the very dogma which is the sole rational foundation for those values. The rulers of Germany have seen quite clearly that dogma and ethics are inextricably bound together. Having renounced the dogma, they have renounced the ethics as well—and from their point of view they are perfectly right. They have adopted an entirely different dogma, whose ethical scheme has no value for peace or truth, mercy or justice, faith or freedom; and they see no reason why they should practise a set of virtues incompatible with their dogma.

    If you reduce morals to things you can rationalise – well, you can rationalise just about anything. A secular society could well lead us down a direction we don’t want to go.

    This is where I want to draw back to the issue of militant secularism. Now I don’t agree with Baroness Warsi that we are facing ‘militant’ secularism (Although I do think there are a number of strident voices which want to get rid of any religious influence in the public square whatsoever, which may have muddied the waters). What is more worrying to me is ‘secularism creep’ to coin a phrase. In other words, more and more, secularism is becoming the ‘default’ position without it ever being democratically introduced.

    We’ve ended up in a situation where religion is marginalised in the public square, almost without anyone ever agreeing that’s a good thing – it’s just happened because of inertia and people believing that ‘secularism is neutral’.

    What I’m hoping is that all this will provoke some kind of debate about the role of religion, Christianity and secularism in our society. If the people want secularism that’s fine, that’s democracy for you – but I’d rather people were aware of what they were agreeing to rather than it just creeping in by stealth.