reason.cck.org.uk

Jesus often can be very surprising. Traditionally, he is portrayed as a gentle figure that preaches love and acceptance. While this is correct, as far as it goes, it is not a complete picture of the Jesus described in the New Testament. We must remember that Jesus led thousands of people in a politically volatile land. He experienced considerable resistance from the religious and governmental establishments. As such, Jesus can be compared more accurately to a peaceful revolutionary, rather than a monk-like figure. As such, he often said and did things that might be unexpected, given our traditional Western views of him.

What does the passage say?

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple, whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:22-27).

At first glance this is a shocking statement. However, we must never interpret a section of the Bible in isolation from its immediate context, and by extension its wider context. Firstly, by reference to the wider context of the Bible, Jesus is not saying that it is the duty of his followers to hate their relatives. This would contradict the fifth commandment to love your father and your mother, and Jesus expressly affirms the laws of God recorded in Exodus in the Old Testament form which this commandment came (Matthew 5: 17-20). Secondly, by reference to this passage’s immediate context, we can better understand what Jesus was saying. Reading further on: For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it began to mock him saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’. This passage is a warning to those who are thinking about following Christ; they should first consider how much it might cost them. Acknowledging Jesus as your God and Saviour will demand your complete allegiance. If the claims of our relatives and the claims of Christ come into collision, the claims of the relatives must give way.

Following Christ is both simple and extremely costly. It is easy to accept Jesus as your God theoretically. Practically, however, it is often very hard. It is as the famous preacher Charles Hadden Spurgeon said: ‘Now, what say you to this? Are you willing to give up your own mind to God, and simply to believe what he tells you in his word? Are you willing also to give up self-rule? “We are our own” says one; “we may do as we like. Our tongues are our own, we may say what we like. We are free thinkers and free livers”. Let me tell you that, if you are saved by Christ, you shall find the only true freedom you can enjoy; but there must first be a complete surrender of yourself to your God’ (The C H Spurgeon collection: Comfort and Assurance, Emerald House, p. 116)

What about Jesus?

Did Jesus hate his family then? Not at all. The care that Jesus had for his mother is clear from what he said to John (one of his followers) while in excruciating pain on the cross; that John should look after his (Jesus’) mother Mary (as it is assumed at this stage that Joseph, Mary’s husband, had died (John 19:25-33))

It is also interesting to note that Mary was foretold that Jesus would put his ‘Father’ (God) before anything else in his life (Luke 2:34-36, 2:4-49). As a boy Mary lost Jesus in Jerusalem for three days. Once found, Mary said: ‘Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress’, Jesus replied, ‘Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ (Luke 2:48-49) Jesus also makes God the priority before his family in Luke 8:19-21, when a crowd was surrounding Jesus and his mother and brothers were standing outside waiting to see him. Jesus responds to the messenger who informs him that they are waiting for him by saying: ‘My mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it’

Jesus consistently puts his ‘Father’ (God) before anything else, even his family. However, this by no means meant that Jesus hated his relatives. His devotion for God drove him: more than his affection for his friends, family or his own life.

The Law of Love

This question was brought to Jesus: Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? He 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: 34-39)

The ‘Law’ is recorded in the Old Testament. It was the standard of living decreed by God for the Jewish nation. Love, says Jesus, is the basis of the law. This is a love both for God and for your ‘neighbour’. One of Jesus’ followers asked who was one’s neighbour. Jesus responded by sharing the parable of the Good Samaritan, a parable that is famous today even to those who have not read the Bible. The parable of the Good Samaritan tells us that our neighbour is any fellow human being.

As such, all Christian ethics is motivated by a love for God and love for your fellow man. What happens, then, when your fellow human being does not want you to act in accordance with your love for God? This is the situation that the passage in question is dealing with. In essence, Christ is making a comparative statement: your love for God must be stronger, by comparison, than your love for your family. There is no doubt that this passage is very direct. The demand that Jesus makes upon his followers here is peculiarly stringent and heart-searching.

Those who have chosen to follow Christ in opposition to the wishes of their families should continue to show love and respect to those family members in accordance with the law of love. Jesus’ call to allegiance, in Luke 14:22-27, is completely met by those who decide, in the face of family rejection, to follow him. Even though this decision may cause offence, offence must never be made if it can be avoided. (Matthew 5:43-48, Romans 13:8)

Why is it necessary?

In some cases it is not necessary. Luckily, many people who become Christians (especially in the West) do not have to decide between their families and Christ. However, everyone who becomes a Christian will have to give up some things. Whether that be sex until marriage, your reputation, or maybe certain friends. The principle behind Jesus’ statement remains: Are you willing to give up the things that are important to you to follow him?

Nevertheless, in many cases, Jesus statement is directly relevant. There are many who have had to give up their relationships with their families to follow Christ. This is more commonly true in the Muslim world, for example. The acceptance of this passage by those who have to suffer the displeasure, or resistance, of their families to follow Christ is undoubtedly very painful. The division and relationship breakdown that can be caused by disagreement on spiritual, or even worldview, issues can run very deep. We cannot minimise the pain and heartbreak that is involved. Yet, Jesus makes it very clear that he will commend those who give up so much for him, and that the pain and rejection involved will by no means go unnoticed or unrecognised in eternity (Matthew 19: 29).

References

1. Ryle, J. C., Expository Thoughts on Luke: Volume 2, 1858
2. The C H Spurgeon collection: Comfort and Assurance, Emerald House, p. 116
3. The Apologetics Study Bible, ed. Chad Brand, E. Clendenen, Paul Copan, J. P. Moreland.

If you consider yourself a sceptic about Christianity or a Christian who is looking for honest answers to some of the toughest questions, then this book was quite simply written for you. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York, who has put into writing the kinds of questions that he is asked on a regular basis about Christianity such as ‘ How can a good God allow suffering?’, ‘Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?’ and ‘How can a loving God send people to hell?’

In this book, Keller takes an unusual approach to defending Christianity, in that he essentially divides the book into two. The first half is dedicated to answering objections that are often raised against Christianity, but in the second half of the book he somewhat changes his approach. Many people often believe that the burden of proof is on Christians to show why they believe in ideas that go beyond mere naturalistic thinking. However, Keller shows very clearly through philosophy, literature and reasoning that there are in fact many assumptions made in atheistic and agnostic worldviews in practice; such as when we consider the origins of moral values, and indeed meaning in life, amongst other things that are a significant problem.

Tim Keller manages to come across as thoughtful and persuasive while maintaining an intellectually credible yet accessible work.  Overall, I would suggest that this book is a must-read for anyone, whether you consider yourself a person of faith or not. This will challenge many of your pre-suppositions to the core.

There is a famous scene found in a paragraph from the great atheist existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea that almost perfectly sums up the dilemma of modern man.  Here the book’s protagonist, Roquentin, spends most of his days living out a humdrum existence – frequenting coffee shops, the public library and just general aimless wandering, all the while attempting to write a book.  Throughout much of the narrative he is frequently struck by feelings of intense nausea that unexpectedly well up within him – mostly they are caused by the various inanimate objects he observes (i.e. a pebble, a newspaper page etc.).

Sartre & Roquentin

One evening, after having dinner at a restaurant and being overcome by an especially intense bout of nausea, he goes for a walk and ends up sitting on a park bench under a chestnut tree, where, in a sort of epiphany moment, he comes to the realization of why he has been afflicted with such sickness.  In essence Roquentin realizes that all of existence is completely meaningless and every object that exists has no reason for doing so.

All life is meaningless?

His nausea was actually the unconscious realization that those objects had no actual reason for existing – the trees, the pebbles, the park bench and even himself.  His contemplation of suicide only served to highlight the fact that death was just as pointless, or ’superfluous’, as life, as existence.  This realization was, for Sartre, the fundamental absurdity at the heart of the cosmos – that everything that does exist should do so for no reason, and that existence and non-existence are equally as meaningless.

Similarly, another famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote an oft-quoted line in his essay A Free Man’s Worship:

‘That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.’

Meaningless but purposeful – a contradiction?

Yet, despite such pessimistic views of the ultimate nature of existence, both Sartre and Russell lived what seemed to be immensely full and productive lives – both wrote prolifically and were highly esteemed philosophers in their day, with a continuing influence on the academy years after their deaths.  Both were also active in many of the political and social issues of their time, from Sartre’s activity in the French Resistance of World War II to Russell’s championing of the poor and vulnerable of society.

In a similar way, we can see that many atheists, agnostics etc. can and do live full, meaningful and productive lives – they have successful careers, family and friends, as well as being involved in many pressing social issues.  Indeed they can, and often do, live life as fully as any religious believer and, perhaps in many cases, take hold of such aspects of life with even more enthusiasm.  Yet the paradox remains that, when pressed into the deeper meaning of existence, it appears that most atheists and agnostics have as similar a nihilistic view of meaning and purpose as do Russell and Sartre.

An Inconsistent Worldview

This kind of schizophrenia was famously described by Francis Schaeffer as a ‘two-story existence’, where people live their lives like a kind of two floored building.  On the one hand people no longer believe in a higher power or deity to guide them and give any intrinsic meaning to their existence (call that intrinsic meaning the lower story or ‘the basement’ where the foundations are).  On the other, however, they carry on with their day-to-day lives as if it had all the meaning of just such a fact – everything they do is done as if it really meant something in the grand scheme of existence (call this the upper story or ‘living room’ area).  The problem is when, if ever, they go downstairs to the basement that floor is completely empty and the structure that holds it all together is frail and wasting away.  In other words there is no real foundation for the beliefs and actions that constitute many people’s existence – but as long as they don’t go down into the basement and scrutinize the basis of their lives it can be easily ignored.

Does consistency matter?

But is there anything wrong with living as if life had value while, ultimately, holding that it actually doesn’t?  After all should atheists have such a consistency between their beliefs and their actions? Perhaps an atheist could suggest here that such a consistency is of no real virtue because if life has no ultimate meaning then living with such a consistency is equally as pointless as living with an inconsistency.  But if this is the case then it must also be acknowledged that there is no objective difference between, to borrow an illustration from Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland, a man who spends his entire life playing tiddlywinks or a Mother Theresa who devotes her life to helping the poor and needy.  Both lives are equally as pointless.  But can anyone really and truly believe such a thing?  This is the practical impossibility of atheism.

Humanism – Self-delusion

Sartre himself attempted to overcome the inherent meaninglessness of existence by inspiring a great existential project for humans to create their own meaning in the face of a cosmos devoid of purpose.  This is what the word ‘existentialism’ ultimately derives from – that ‘existence’ comes before ‘essence’ – that human beings create their own meaning and purpose through the way they live their lives (or the way they ‘exist’) and the choices they make, as opposed to some fixed essence of being which gives them a preordained purpose to life.  The obvious contradiction here is with Sartre’s own admittance in Nausea that every action we do and every action we choose is just as pointless as that which we choose not to do instead.  In other words Sartre’s project, and the project of modern atheistic humanism in general, is nothing but a grand act of self-delusion.

Indeed it seems that when confronted with ultimate reality the atheist cannot but admit that human life, qualitatively speaking, is no different from that of a dog – and perhaps the dog’s existence is actually more desirable as it has no true capacity for self-reflection and abstract thought and cannot come to this realization of the inherent meaninglessness of its existence.

Solomon and Nihilism?

The writer of the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes made this point almost three thousand years ago:

“The fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All come from the dust and all return to the dust” (Eccl. 3:19-20).

Indeed the writer of the book, which reads more like a modern existentialist tract than a book of the Bible, passes judgment on all the world has to offer to provide some kind of meaning in the face of meaninglessness: pleasure, wealth, fame, honour etc. etc..  His verdict on all these things is simple: “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (1:2).  For him a life that ends in death and has no God and no immortality is sheer absurdity.

Why not check out Reason:Live?

This Sunday @CCK, Brighton.

For more details click here.

I want to spend a few minutes addressing those of you who have decided that you are Atheists, that there is definitely no God. It may be helpful to initially ask the question ‘What God is it that you don’t believe in?’.

I am fully aware that there are many different ideas of who God is, and sometimes the representation of God given to you (even by Christians) may seem lacking in credibility. If you think of God as being an old man in the sky with a white wispy beard looking something like my younger brother Duncan (for those of you who know him), then I can appreciate your unbelief! This is one of the types which is often laughed at in the media, understandably! (No offence bro, I love you really!!).

Recently, I was watching an episode of the comedy ‘Peep Show’ (series 2) where one of the main characters Jez shows his indignation for this god who he refers to as a ‘big toga-wearing bearded killjoy’.

There may be other examples of different gods that you don’t believe in like the god of the gaps, (a theory sometimes used to give explanations for areas of the world which science has not found an explanation for as yet) or a god who asks people to blow themselves up and kill others to show their devotion as believers. I also share my disbelief in all of these gods with you.

The Philosophical Problem

So why can’t you be an atheist?

Well, if to be a theist (belief in a God, still active in his creation) means having knowledge that there is a God who exists, being an A-theist is to have an absolute knowledge that no God exists. Philosophically this position is actually impossible to hold, for the simple reason that no human being has absolute knowledge of the whole universe, so at best all that an Atheist can say is ‘From the areas I have been to (eg. Brighton, East Sussex) I have not discovered a God.’ This does not mean that God does not exist, merely that in your travels you have not discovered him, as yet. This means that technically everyone who doesn’t believe in God is agnostic (in the general sense) on this issue (doesn’t know). This is a point that even the popular scientist Richard Dawkins concedes in his book The God Delusion.

Fire, Fire, the house is on fire

Once we have realised that we can be ‘at worst’ an agnostic this then leaves us with two approaches to agnosticism, which are best understood in the story format below.

If someone one day rang you in your office at work and told you that your house was on fire, you would have three options before you (broadly speaking), (a) you could go home and check that the house wasn’t on fire, (b) you might just make a phone call to a neighbour to confirm that this wasn’t the case, or (c) you could just hope for the best, that there wasn’t really a fire and be ignorant of this impending situation. Surely option (c) is not one that we would advise of others in this example, nor one we would take ourselves?

Let’s take it one stage further then. What if your wife and children were rumoured to be inside as well? I’m sure that we would agree that a phone call would not be enough to ease our concerns, we would need to stop whatever we were doing at work and go and check it out for ourselves.

I would suggest if you do not know if there is a God, then it is the kind of thing that you can’t afford to be ignorant about. You can’t be the person who doesn’t bother to look into the facts at all, nor can you simply rely on a simple phone call to find out. For some of you this may represent being reliant on other members of your family who think it’s stupid and rely on them, or relying on the cynical superficial media coverage which focuses on ‘Priests who are paedos’. Maybe you had a bad experience meeting a Christian once before, and this has put you off. I appeal to you not to lightly throw out the ‘baby’ with the ‘bathwater’.

You need to investigate this grand claim for yourself. If the God of the Bible exists then the cost is too great for you to be ignorant of the facts, and the benefits to glorious to miss out on. I’m not just talking about heaven and hell here either, this incredible truth will revolutionise your life in the here and now too.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Some people will object at this point and say ”Well technically we can’t be sure that some other object like a Flying Spaghetti monster, a tooth fairy or Father Christmas doesn’t exist, therefore given that we can only be agnostic on these issues (even though in reality we know that they are extremely unlikely to exist) we should put God in this same box.”

This may sound plausible enough as a rational argument, but upon closer inspection it falls apart because it presumes that there is no evidence for God in the same way in which there is no evidence for a flying spaghetti monster.

On this site you will find a more in depth analysis of some of these points, but I will briefly outline some of the ‘footprints’ of there being a God which we can go and investigate. Here I will summarise the points of the arguments briefly:

1.    A Created Order

Whether we like it or not, the world sure looks as if it has been created by an intelligent designer. The universe had a beginning, whether you want to call this a big bang or not, things of this grandeur do not begin by themselves, they have a creator behind them.

http://reason.cck.org.uk/who-made-god/

http://reason.cck.org.uk/hasnt-the-theory-of-evolution-shown-the-bible-to-be-false/

2.    Fine-Tuning of the universe

The World has been made in such a way that it is incredibly fine-tuned, and if several scientific constant’s where very slightly different, we would not exist at all.

http://reason.cck.org.uk/how-does-modern-science-show-that-there-is-a-god/

3.    Scientific Investigation

Because there is a God, there is a law-giver and because of this as scientists we are able to assume that the world has order to investigate. Without this assumption of order, we would have no basis for believing that there was an ordered universe for us to investigate. Everything would be chaos.

John C Lennox – Has Science buried God?

4.    Meaning in Life

If there is no God, then ultimately there is no point for us being here, except to do whatever we like. One day it will all be forgotten anyway, and so we may as well ‘eat, drink, for tomorrow we die’. If you’re not having a good time, then why not just end it now? Yet, we know that there is objective meaning to our existence, which comes ultimately from our creator.

http://reason.cck.org.uk/is-life-without-god-meaningless/

http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/intermediate/the-practical-impossibility-of-atheism-in-the-meaning-value-and-purpose-of-life.htm

5.    The existence of Morality

If there is no God, then there is no objective morality either. We need someone to provide a standard of what is right and wrong or we just do whatever we like, and as societal norms change so will our sense of what is right and wrong. At its worst this becomes, if it feels right, then do it.

http://reason.cck.org.uk/can-morality-exist-without-god/

6.    Jesus Christ’s Life & Resurrection.

The greatest evidence for me that God exists is that around 2000 years ago, Jesus Christ lived on Planet Earth as a man. He went around doing incredible miracles and giving remarkable teaching. However, the pinnacle of his work was actually completed in his death and resurrection as he took upon himself the sin of the world, and then on the third day rose again. Dead men don’t rise…and the evidence points so strongly that Jesus did. How? Christians believe that he was raised by the power of God (1 Cor 6:14).

http://reason.cck.org.uk/tag/resurrection/

http://bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/intermediate/the-resurrection.htm

To some of you reading this, this will sound fanciful…but I invite you not to take my word for it, but to look into it yourself.

Conclusion:

So does God exist? It’s a big deal for sure, and one which could potentially change your life forever depending on what you find out. If you consider yourself an atheist or agnostic then do not close off your heart. Before you start your investigation, why not ask God to reveal himself to you if he exists. For all the intellectual questions we have (which are totally viable) the bible says that it is a decision of the heart to not pursue God (Psalm 40:1), so I invite you to ask God to show himself to you as you look into these matters.

One key point that has been argued down the ages is that morality is only of intrinsic value if it is objective, which means it needs to come from an external source God, not merely a set of opinions which we temporarily agree on. Here we investigate this point of view.

Introduction & Respect for Persons

Initially most people would think that the obvious answer to this question is ‘yes, of course morality can exist without God.’  It certainly seems that both atheists and agnostics alike can lead what we recognize as good and decent lives, despite their lack of belief in a deity.  Often times, in fact, it appears that many unbelievers’ moral lives put many religious believers to shame.  But the question here isn’t, can we act morally without belief in God, but, ultimately, can morality exist without God? This second question is different from the first – it’s a question about the nature of moral facts and values themselves, as opposed to how someone may or may not act.

Over the centuries various explanations and theories have been offered as to just what such moral facts and values are. Some see them as simply expressions of social and cultural conventions (i.e. like driving on the left hand side of the road as opposed to the right) or as questions of personal taste (i.e. like having a taste for certain kinds of food or not).  In the abstract it’s often appealing for people to treat morality as simply a question of personal taste or social convention.  Such moral relativism, however, often comes unstuck in the face of truly horrific evil – it seems hard for most people to really accept that anyone could seriously argue that the Holocaust or the recent genocide in Rwanda are simply issues on a par with how someone enjoys their curry or how a certain culture views its traffic laws (as crude as this may sound, this is essentially what many moral theories ultimately state). Such acts are evil, plain and simple, and there’s almost nothing to say to people who deny otherwise – in many ways it is equivalent to denying the laws of logic. Intuitively we all seem to know that some things are just wrong, whatever opinion any person or society may have to the contrary. In other words moral facts are objective and binding upon people in a way that’s independent of their individual opinions of them.

How can we best sum up this objective moral sensibility that we all seem to intuitively possess?  The German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s idea of respect for persons or to treat people as ends rather than as means, as having inherent worth and dignity simply by the fact that they are human beings and nothing more, seems as good a summary as any. Kant thought that we should always act towards others in a way which considers people as ends in themselves rather than simply as a means to our own ends.  This is why actions such as murder, theft and rape are wrong – because such acts treat others simply as a means and not as ends in themselves, thus discarding the inherent dignity they possess as human beings.

Evolutionary Ethics

For people who do not believe in God, then, and yet still wish to affirm the worth of human beings and the objective wrongness of such actions as murder/rape etc., what are the options?  For most atheists and agnostics the most obvious explanation for how we came about our moral sensibility must lie in our evolutionary past. Though such theories of evolutionary ethics are still highly speculative it would seem that some process of natural selection would have genetically predisposed our species to act in certain ways and with certain ‘herd’ characteristics, for the simple fact that such behaviour contributed greatly to our survival as a species as opposed to some other different behaviour patterns. So, to give one example, perhaps altruism and self-sacrifice became characteristics we admire in people because, ultimately, one person sacrificing his life for others meant that fewer members of the species died, thus greatly enhancing the species’ chances of survival.  Eventually such genetic predispositions came to be enshrined in various laws and cultures across the world.

But does such a naturalistic evolutionary account give us sufficient warrant for the inherent dignity of persons, as well as the objective wrongness of certain acts committed against them? It seems to me that, in effect, we could just as easily argue that the fact human beings have evolved a spleen or a kidney to aid in our survival as a species gives us inherent moral worth – but would anyone seriously propose such a thing? In this case it seems simply arbitrary that we should chose our evolved moral sensibility as something which endows us with inherent moral worth as opposed to something else we’ve evolved, such as a bodily organ – after all both are by products of an amoral evolutionary process aimed at survival and reproduction and not at moral action. In effect this raises David Hume’s old philosophical problem of gaining a non-naturalistic value from a naturalistic fact.

Furthermore, as philosopher of science Michael Ruse has noted, if we ‘roll the dice’ of evolution again, so to speak, there’s a good chance we would end up with intelligent creatures that somehow consider to be morally praiseworthy almost everything that we as human beings consider to be morally repulsive (i.e. cannibalism, murder, selfishness, rape, incest etc.etc.).  From this Ruse concludes that there can be no such thing as objective moral truth – and even if there were such a thing it would remain simply irrelevant to us as a species, for the chances that we have evolved in such a way as to exactly reflect within our internal moral structure whatever such an objective moral order may be is vanishingly small.

As noted at the beginning, this does not entail that the agnostic/atheist cannot live a moral life in the sense of following the rules they intuitively feel they possess. But it does mean that they have no real objective basis for why they should do so. This poses a dilemma for many people – if they stick to naturalism and atheism it appears they must assert that there is no such thing as objective moral values after all and, therefore, no basis for inherent human dignity. But, on the other hand, it appears that most of us – atheist, agnostic or theist alike – sincerely wish to affirm the objectivity of moral values, as well as the inherent worth of persons. Something must give.

Christian Ethics & Conclusion

But what of theism in general and, specifically, Christian theism?  The Biblical doctrine that we are all made in the ‘Image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) gives human beings an inherent moral worth that naturalistic philosophy cannot provide and, thus, a foundation for treating others as ends in themselves and, therefore, an objective morality.  Jesus Himself summed up the essence of all morality in the so-called ‘Golden Rule’ (Mark 12:31) – to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ – or to treat people with the dignity they deserve, in the same way you consider yourself and your own life as intrinsically meaningful.  When we realize that each individual person is created equally in the Image of God we cannot help but see them, and human beings in general, as possessing intrinsic moral worth – something that morality as an evolutionary byproduct cannot provide.

Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. – Titus 2:9-10

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ – Ephesians 6:5

Passages like these may lead someone to the conclusion that the Bible is pro-slavery, and therefore should not be acknowledged or listened to, never mind followed:  A book that promotes such an appalling, violent, dehumanizing and often racist concept as slavery has no place in our society.

But to come to this conclusion, that the Bible supports slavery, is quite wrong.  These passages do not say this and they need to be understood in their proper context.  I want to explain that God and His Word, the Bible, are very much opposed to slavery.

New Testament slavery

Before we go any further, it is important to point out that the slavery mentioned in these passages is unlikely to be the same thing as what may come to mind when we hear the term.  When we think of slavery, most of us think of slave ships leaving Africa, or the trafficking of young women for the sex trade.  The slavery of 1st century Asia Minor, the context of these passages, is quite different.

Many slaves in this period were able to attain respectable positions in society and some had the opportunity to buy their freedom after a certain period of serving their master. In considering slavery we should not maintain a narrow view but realize that, in this context, it is not as cruel or degrading as we might think.  My point here is not to condone slavery, it should not be condoned and is very wrong, but to show that slavery and the lifestyle of slaves is wide ranging.

The Bible is anti-slavery

Let me explain three ways in which the Bible is anti-slavery.  Slavery is rooted in the idea that there is inequality between human beings.  One person owning another person immediately creates a position of superiority.  Often this is manifested in racial terms; one ethnic group dominates another and makes them their slaves.

This idea is at odds with the equality and dignity of life that the Bible promotes from cover to cover.  Human beings are all made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and so have equal worth and identity.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that certain people are superior to others.  All are made by God and are valued by Him.

Secondly, the Bible repeatedly stresses that God loves justice (Psalm 11:7, 33:5, 99:4).  The inequality and injustice that we see in the world are the effects of man turning away from the way God made the world to be.

Thirdly, in 1 Timothy 1:10, slave traders are condemned alongside murderers, liars and perverts.

The purpose of Paul’s letters

With this in mind, we might be wondering, “Why do these passages not speak out against slavery then?”  This is a very good question.

One of the reasons that someone might conclude that these passages are pro-slavery is because the author, Paul, speaks about slavery without condemning it.  If he does not condemn it, then he must be condoning it, right?  However, this is not the case.  We must understand the purpose that Paul has in writing these things.  Both Titus and Ephesians are letters he wrote in order to instruct new Christians on how to live to serve and enjoy God.

Had Paul been a politician, God would surely have called him to speak out about injustice and establish new ways in which society should operate that reflected God’s heart.  In some ways Paul does this in his letters anyway.  In Colossians 3:11 he contradicts the common ideas and social inequalities of the time, saying that everyone, regardless of ethnicity or status, is equal.  This would have been a radical and controversial statement.

But actually his primary purpose is not to transform the social systems, but to change individuals’ lives with the truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

Therefore, in these letters he is giving instruction to slaves, slave masters, husbands, wives and all people, whatever their status in society, to live according to the truth of the Gospel and to worship and serve God.  Paul is not condoning or strengthening unjust social divisions but is instructing everyone on how to live in spite of them.  Therefore, we cannot say that Paul is supporting slavery.  He is simply telling people how to make the best of a bad situation:  how to live for God in a world that is not perfect.

Should we follow the Bible?

Let me conclude by saying that more than just opposing slavery in principle, the Bible actively encourages us to combat social injustice.  In Luke 4, Jesus states that it His purpose on earth to “preach good news to the poor” and “release the oppressed”.  Here he is addressing both spiritual and physical oppression.  The Bible repeatedly calls Christians to love all people and seek the welfare of others, especially those who are weak and marginalized in society.  Jesus explains in Matthew 25:40 that this type of action is a mark of the Kingdom of God.

One man who responded to this call with world-changing impact was William Wilberforce.  Motivated by his Christian convictions he led the parliamentary campaign for the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire.  After years of tireless campaigning, in 1807 saw the Slave Trade Act passed which abolished the slave trade.  However he did not stop there and, three days before his death in 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed, ending slavery in the British Empire outright.  The film Amazing Grace, released in 2007 to mark the 200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Act, chronicles his life and campaigns.

Like Wilberforce, all Christians have a responsibility to contend for the equality, dignity and preciousness of human life as representatives of God’s Kingdom.  This is in direct contradiction to slavery and we follow the Bible’s instruction so that these values are preserved in our society.

An unjust God?

Sadly, because of the gross injustice prevalent in this world, we tend to think that God is an unjust God. How can He be a loving Father and yet allow a child to be abused? There’s something inherent in us that cries out for crimes to be punished, for wrongs to be made right. Anger rises in us when we hear of hideous atrocities committed against innocent victims. And I believe that this is what it means to be created in God’s image (Gen 1:27). God hates injustice with a greater passion than you and I can ever do. A study of the book of Amos in the Bible would reveal to you how angry God is that His people are mocking the judicial system. It is a terrible thing to come across God’s mighty wrath. For now, we look briefly at what the Bible says about justice.

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— He did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:25-26)

Jesus relates to suffering

The Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ died for the sin of the world. (1 Cor 15:3; 1 Pet 3:18) This means that as Jesus hung on the cross, God was punishing Him for all the sins of the world and pouring out His wrath on Him. (Isaiah 53:5-6) When God the Father looked at Jesus hanging on the cross, He blamed Jesus for all the sin and injustice in the world. He looked at Him with the anger of a father who’s daughter has just been raped, a husband who’s wife has just been murdered, and He turned His face away from Him. What really happened on the cross, we will never fully understand, but what we are clear on was that a heavy price was paid for the sin of this world – such was the extent of God’s hatred for sin that He sent His only Son to pay its punishment.

Jesus understands what it feels like to have evil done to you. He bore the punishment that that evil person deserved.

God will not be mocked

The Bible also goes on to say,

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you. (James 5:1-6)

God hears the cry of the innocent, and one day, for those people who did not believe in the mighty work of the cross, God will bring retribution to them. Woe be unto those on whom the anger of the Lord God falls. Do not be fooled, God will not be mocked.

This may seem a strange post coming from a born again Christian, but I want you all to know that I hate religion.

Why, you may be wondering, isn’t this what you are living for, and all about?

Well, in a word No!

The Bible teaches clearly that we have been made to have a relationship with God, not perform a load of duties for a distant God who we are worried is going to smite us if we don’t do what he tells us. The Bible says that this kind of obligation-based living on its own is dung (to use a pleasant word). If this is the kind of experience you have had of Christianity then let me apologise, seriously.

Everyone hates people who are self-righteous, and this is what alot of ‘religious’ people can be like, because they feel very proud of their moral performance to make God happy.

I want you all to know that anyone that claims to be a Christian should be among the least self-righteous people you ever meet. ‘why?’ you may ask. ‘You religious types are all the same, you want everyone to know how good you are.’

Well, this is not the case and let me explain why:

SALVATION BY RELIGION

This is where many religious groups believe that if they are a good enough person they will be saved by God and spend eternity in heaven. The Bible refers to these efforts as being about as pleasant to God’s mind as a used tampon! pretty graphic isn’t it.

SALVATION BY GRACE

This means that it’s a free gift. If you know that you’re not perfect (which you’re not, and I’m certainly not) and God is, then you will recognise correctly that we are not on an equal footing with him. So because of this we can’t enter into a relationship with him. So how do we solve this problem?

Work harder, read the bible more, pray – wrong!

Jesus came and lived the perfect life that we couldn’t and God substituted him in our place. He took the just punishment that we should have, and so, if you accept that Jesus did this for you as a free gift (because he loves you!!) then you can know the joy of having an intimate personal relationship with him.

Jesus came to give life to the full (John 10:10), not to kill it, and the way we get this is by knowing our creator God by relationship, not ritualistic do-gooding.

The joy that comes from this wonderful relationship is incredible, it sets your life on a rock which will not be moved and you then get to realise the plans that God has for your life.

It is worth saying to begin with that anything that the church puts forward as their viewpoint is not because they have got together and held a democratic vote on the subject, but is because it is revealed in a higher standard, The Bible, which Christians believe to be the word of God (For more see article How do we know the Bible is the word of God? [Coming soon]).

I would like to make it very clear to begin with, that God created sex, and is absolutely delighted with that. Because of this He wrote a whole book about sex and intimacy within the Bible called the Song of Songs. Over past generations it would be fair to say that, on occasion, the church has been too silent on this wonderful joy for all married couples, which has allowed society to take over and cause us to learn about it only from reading various magazines.

Lust as Adultery

Masturbation is not referred to directly in the Bible as a sin, although do not stop reading at this point. The main principle that needs to be considered if you are either married or unmarried is, does it cause you to lust after women/men other than your spouse (N.B. Not your girlfriend or boyfriend)? Jesus makes it very clear that if you have lusted in your heart it is as good as having committed adultery (Matt 5:28). Jesus treats lust very seriously indeed, when you consider committing adultery is one of the ten commandments (Exodus 20:14) that God gave to Moses.

The reality is that masturbation should only be performed within a marriage by a husband and wife (Song of Songs 2:3, 2:6, 4:12) for the mutual benefit of bringing one another closer together, not as an option for being selfish. If it is being done outside of this context then 99.9% of the time it is going to be a sin because it is likely to stem from checking out some guy or girl you think is ‘hot’ and storing the image for later, watching pornography, or doing it with someone that you are messing around with, or even in a serious relationship with.

Yes, technically speaking, you might be able to masturbate while not lusting, like thinking about a piece of chewing gum, or a nice meadow, but not many of us find that very arousing, and if you do … be very worried indeed!

Reap what you sow

In the Bible it says that we will reap what we sow (Gal 6:6-8), and if we spend large portions of our single life masturbating over pornography, (or with multiple men or women) then consider for yourself what seed you are sowing. You are ‘sowing’ into your mind that one person is not enough (by looking at multiple naked bodies), selfishness (Sex is actually about serving the other person in marriage), and without being too graphic, you are more likely to be rubbish in bed as a man (I can’t speak for women!), because you will be used to reaching orgasm very quickly and fail to lovingly satisfy your wife. Hardly, a recipe for a successful marriage, whether you are a Christian or not.

Ask yourself whether these things are really what you want to ‘reap’ in your life?

On the other hand, living a life which is in tune with God’s plan will help you to reap other things such as self-control, sacrificial love and a godly desire for one man or woman, which, even if you are single at the moment, can serve you very well preparing you for married life. A society that lives successfully in this way will feel many social and economic benefits, which is very much a benefit that the UK needs more than ever.

God’s plan – Marriage

As I mentioned earlier God is totally for sex, within its appropriate context, and this is ultimately what God has given sexual desire for. This is not because God is trying to ruin our fun, but because like a loving father he cares about us and does not want us to get hurt by giving ourselves away to other people who we then break up with.

When we become sexually involved with someone, a significant bond is formed between the two people and this is exactly what God designed. However, when we break up with lots of casual partners (outside of marriage), we go through a lot of pain as these bonds are broken, and can be very badly emotionally hurt, which can lead to major personal insecurities.

The other alternative is that you break these bonds with people so often like a prostitute that you become completely desensitized to the actual joy of sex as a loving fact, and it becomes merely just another biological function like going to the toilet. What a huge tragedy when sex is reduced to such a purpose.

God wants to give us a context where we can explore one another sexually in a ‘covenant’ relationship, where there is security that we will be together for life. It is in this relationship that there is complete liberty and freedom, not in multiple partners.

(For more on marriage please check out http://reason.cck.org.uk/tag/relationships/)

Living a Pure Life – Jesus

One of the best things about this subject is we have an example of a man who went through all of these things too. Jesus Christ was tempted in every way, but was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). This seems somewhat shocking to say if you have never considered it, but Jesus was tempted to masturbate. Yes, really. Jesus despite being in very nature God (Philippians 2:6), was also fully man (Philippians 2:8). Through Jesus we learn that temptation is not the same as sin, and also that it is possible to live a pure life with freedom in this particular area, by the power of the personal work of the Holy Spirit.

Forgiveness

This can be an area which many people spend far too much time living in guilt over, and whether you are a non-Christian or a Christian, this is not God’s plan. If you are struggling in this particular area, then please remember that it is the devil’s plan for you to live in this place, (John 10:10), whereas Jesus wants you to live life to the full.

Let’s be clear about this: I don’t mean just glossing over the issue. I mean coming to Jesus and confessing your sin to him. I would strongly recommend speaking to another Christian about it to help keeping you accountable about this issue (James 5:16), and help you by the power of the Holy Spirit to change.

If you are not yet a Christian and recognise the problems that this habit can cause, then I would encourage you to first give your life to Jesus Christ, who alone gives you a completely brand new life (2 Corinthians 5:17). You can come to him just as you are, and he will change you. Don’t try and become a more moral person first and then think you have earned the right to being a Christian. It’s a free gift, and God is not impressed with your moral attempts at self-help. Come to the one who gives clean water to drink and stop drinking the toilet water that promises to satisfy but never can.

For more on this subject please check out Mark Driscoll’s very frank e-booklet:

http://relit.org/porn_again_christian/

What would the case be for you or I?
In the Old Testament, God reveals himself to his people Israel. He reveals his standards in books such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy (these standards are referred to collectively as ‘The Law’ and summarised in the 10 Commandments.) These standards are reflective of His holiness (‘God-ness’, ‘Other-than-man-ness’,) and were to be binding upon His people. In effect, God sets the bar for having dealings with Him incredibly high and many things that we as a society consider permissible by consensus would be punishable by corporal or capital punishment under ‘The Law’. In fact, there would be few, if any, of us who wouldn’t be condemned for aspects of our behaviour if the Law were properly enacted upon us. We are, by nature, rebellious.

Jesus and The Law
This didn’t change with the arrival of Jesus Christ. He was accused by the religious teachers of His day of teaching people to disobey God’s Law but by he proclaimed (recorded in Matthew 5:17-19) the following:
a) that he had come to fulfill the Law completely – no one had ever done this
b) that the Law was eternal and would never be revoked in any way
c) that anyone who broke even the smallest part of the Law had no business with God and that only those who kept it completely, did. If anything, by His teaching, Jesus raised the already high bar even higher! (For examples see Matthew 5:21-48)

The Problem
Okay, if you’ve followed up to this point, you should have detected an obvious problem:
a) None of us are perfect (Romans 3:23)
b) God is nothing but perfect! (2 Samuel 22:31, 1 John 1:5)
c) It is impossible for perfection to be in harmony with imperfection (Amos 3:3)
d) So it follows : No one can ever be in relationship with God – what a terrible state of affairs!

The Solution
So what is the purpose of the Law? It seems that it is impossible to keep. Is it to be obeyed? The fact is, the Law was given for this purpose: to reveal our dire situation in relation to God (Romans 5:20), to cause us to be distraught about this and to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24.)

Remember what I mentioned above: Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law; to do what we could not do on our behalf, namely to live a perfect life, to die in our place and allow us to be in relationship with God the Father through Jesus’ own achievements in His life, death and resurrection. Speaking of God’s free acceptance shown to we who are completely unworthy John 1:17 says “The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” and 2 Corinthians 5:21 , speaking of Jesus taking our punishment in exchange for His righteousness, says “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”