THE QUEEN and INTER-FAITH

In one of the January columns I spoke warmly of the Christian content of the Queen’s Christmas message, and said that in this Jubilee year we should pray that other occasions might arise when she could speak equally firmly about the Christian faith. Last Wednesday (15th Feb) she was present at a multi-faith reception at Lambeth Palace, hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It was, as the Archbishop said, one of her first public engagements to celebrate her Jubilee year. She met with and addressed representatives of eight non-Christian religions – groups from the Baha’i, the Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Zoroastrian religions. This inevitably was going to be a difficult challenge for her to negotiate. The speeches were short; one from the Archbishop, a response from the Queen and a thank-you from the Archbishop.

The speeches provided a robust affirmation of the validity of religious faith generally over and against the increasingly militant atheism in our culture. The Archbishop paid just tribute to the Queen when he said to her in his opening address, “You have been able to show so effectively that being religious is not eccentric or abnormal” (a common accusation of contemporary secular atheism). He went on to speak of “Your Majesty’s commitment in the name of God to your vocation”, underlining the spiritual dynamic of the Queen’s great sense of duty. These are sentiments which would be endorsed by large numbers of people. Noticeably, however, the Archbishop stopped short of speaking of her Christian faith, speaking only of her “religious” faith. This seemed unnecessarily over-cautious.

The Queen responding made it clear, as Monarch and Head of the Church of England, that there was to be genuine religious liberty in the nation and no intolerance. People can and must work together for the benefit of the whole. Her words were, “The Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all other faiths in this country”, and, “The Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely”. That was important statement in a world racked with religious and ideological intolerance. The Christian church has learned over a period of some three centuries of inter-Christian conflict that violence and intolerance was not the way to settle differences, and that tolerance was essential. Christians have learned that the gospel is essentially non-violent and non-repressive; its Founder died on a cross, not on a battle field.

At the same time, however, the Christian gospel can never compromise its distinctive teachings. If the church has a duty to protect religious freedom against repression, it has an equal duty to make plain that there is only one God and only one Saviour. Idolatry remains abhorrent to the Creator God. The gospel simply does not see other faiths as a legitimate route to eternal life. On the contrary they lead to darkness and oppression. Jesus remains the “Light” and the “Truth”. The church has to walk the tight rope of being loving and tolerant to people and yet firm on what it has had revealed to it in Jesus. If it does not speak firmly, then it is not faithful to people and cannot be a vehicle of salvation. The problem here, of course, is that the true proclamation of Jesus and the Cross inevitably brings offence no matter how gracious the church may be.

The Queen had clearly been advised to follow a similar line to the Archbishop and to talk about religious faith as such and not Christianity in particular. No offence was to be risked. But her advisors went too far in this direction and lost the balance. Whilst it was not obviously a setting in which to deliberately cause offence, neither was it a setting in which to affirm the essential validity of other faiths. The general tenor, however, was to do just that.

Perhaps the most obvious example of that affirmation was the invitation to the different faith groups to bring a sacred object pertaining to their faith and around which they each might gather. These objects were seen as a rich and beautiful cultural heritage and commended by the Queen, but unfortunately they included idols and the like. The spiritual naivety of Lambeth in making such an invitation is astounding. The objects were certainly not just cultural artifacts to those who brought them; they were highly symbolic and powerful religiously. It was a totally unnecessary gesture on Lambeth's part, since the gathering would have been perfectly adequate without them. Interestingly enough the Christian religious object comprised two implements used in anointing the Queen at her coronation. These are important in their way and may have been offered as a delicate gesture to the Queen, but they are hardly symbolic of the essence of the Christian faith. Why not a cross? Why not the New Testament? Either of those would have put the Christian exhibit on a par with the faith groups who made no apology for putting on display objects absolutely central to their beliefs, including texts. It is precisely at such a point that the Christian inter-faith stance is seriously at fault in its integrity and its legitimate boldness. It reflects a profound "wooliness" about the true nature of God and about call of the church to witness.

Despite these features I’m so glad that the Queen met the faith leaders. I’m left feeling, however, how much she needs our prayer in her desire to do her Christian duties wisely and with integrity.




Bob

To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue

CHINESE (NON) ENTERTAINMENT

The Economist magazine recently reported that “according to an order that took effect on Jan. 1st this year, China’s 34 satellite television stations must limit ‘excessive and vulgar content’”. The Economist noted that “compared with offerings in other countries, China’s television fare is already quite tame. Viewers looking for sex, nudity, gore or crude language will search in vain”. That sounds wonderfully unbelievable! But things are evidently getting tighter still: since Jan. 1st in the 7.30 p.m. – 10 p.m. Chinese “Gold Time” viewing slot there must now be two 30 min. news broadcasts and only 90 min of lighter shows. A much loved singing contest “Super Girl” has been axed. Chinese tastes are clearly being brought to heel!

I found this action from an atheist dictatorship very intriguing. Obviously the government was not acting out of any Christian moral imperative! In fact the article went on to make clear that the reason for this "entertainment" reduction was that the leadership considered the youth of China were being poisoned by such stuff, the poison being a foreign culture and ideology which would “westernise and divide” China. In other words, the government’s motive was totally political and anti-western.

Imagine this censorship happening in Britain! It would be an immediate end to David Cameron. The fact that it can actually happen in China indicates how strong a grip the government still has over the people, despite the enormous strides to free expression the Chinese people have taken. But that grip will soon loosen, and China may burst into its own “Arab Spring” with a new and more successful Tiananmen Square revolt. That is what the Chinese government most fear, and what makes this bit of news (in a year when Chinese leadership will change) all the more surprising. If China does have its “Arab Spring” then it can burst into “freedom” and enjoy as much sex and gore as it pleases – it will have become truly civilized! What an extraordinary choice we have here; political freedom and all the uncontrolled media flood of moral decadence or dictatorship with a realistic censorship on such decadence.


Though expressly political, I suspect that the authorities are also motivated by the fact that much of western behaviour as portrayed on television is decadent behaviour, and not in the long term in the interests of a vigorous state. Be that as it may, China, along with other large cultural areas of the world has come to identify the West with pleasure loving and loose behaviour. Western permissive liberalism is seen not only a political but a moral affront as well. We need to remember that, though embraced by many, such permissiveness is despised not only in China but by many across the world. There are many eyes that are not blinded to the fact that modern western “democracy” has some very dark features. It’s a sad reflection on our society when even atheistic communism has to repel its invidious influence. It’s even sadder when such permissiveness is actively associated with the concept of Christianity. But when we see the continuous moral decline on our own television screens, and see it hour after hour we should not be surprised.

It leaves me more than ever grateful for the advance of the gospel world-wide that western society by the grace of God provided over the last three centuries from the 1700s. As a consequence of that China will have its millions of Christians who will despise an evil television diet and will not need government legislation I’m thankful that genuine Christian mission continues to do the same today through so many faithful witnesses. But it means there is a continuing and desperate need for all Christians to propagate a genuine Christian message of a life of joy and peace through righteous and godly living.



Bob ( N.B.There will be no blog next Tues (14th))

To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue

THE PLIGHT OF MAN

The title of this column, “The Plight of Man” seems rather old fashioned, but it conveys the sense of a desperate need in humanity, a need which has not gone away with the years. I have recently felt the weight of that need more and more, and I cannot find a better phrase.

This phrase has come afresh to me as a result of a more intensive look at the nations of the world and especially perhaps at looking at India. Operation World, the Prayer Guide to Every Nation, says quite bluntly, “India has more human need than any other nation”. It goes on to note that poverty affects hundreds of millions, a poverty that often means utter destitution; forty per cent in India live below the poverty line. Poverty abounds not only in the vast cities but throughout the whole of rural India. This is the truth behind a nation which now boasts a middle class of 350 million and the fourth largest number of billionaires. These merely stand astride a mountain of people in poverty and do not hide the plight of most.

One could add much more to that picture of need. For example an estimated 900,000 people (almost a million) in India die through drinking unclean water or through pollution, 35 million children under 15 are orphans whilst 20 million are child labourers and 1.2 million are involved in prostitution. This is just scratching the surface. The list of such appalling needs is a very long one.

I have cited India, but the truth is, of course, that gross human need, human suffering and distress abound wherever you turn in the world. It affects billions. In the U.K. we are remarkably sheltered from what so many suffer, and the weight of it scarcely touches us, even if we are by no means entirely sheltered from the experiences of need and suffering. It does us no harm to look hard and wide at this panorama of distress and let the “plight of man” start to weigh heavy on heart and mind. It certainly galvanises prayer.

This panorama does not speak simply of widespread and appalling physical and social need, however. It also speaks very loudly of a profound moral plight among mankind. For the simple fact of the matter is that a vast amount of the need and pain and suffering is due to the failings of human behaviour. The plight of man is in fact fundamentally a moral problem. Selfish greed and desire for power spawns corruption and violence. Corruption, feeding on the growth of wealth in the world, is a fast growing and world-wide moral disease. It is avid corruption, not least in high places, which in large measure keeps India and Africa in their backward and needy positions, and corruption is increasing rapidly in the West. The new rich India makes very little progress in getting its act together for the relief of its poor.
The fact is that the responsibility for the plight of mankind rests at mankind’s own door, and mankind on the whole shows a remarkable disinterest in helping its own kind.

Some will no doubt say I should look at things from the other end and see the good in the world – see the glass as half full, not half empty. I think that, however, just evades facing the fact of the desperate nature of the plight of man; it’s rather like saying look at your good finger when four others are broken. No, we need to face what we are like and the awfulness of our predicament. The plight of man is his massive moral deficiency, his huge fall from grace, causing mayhem among his own species.

That plight is, of course, precisely what God is earnestly seeking to impress on people. What has so recently weighed on me is the utter blindness of humanity to its moral predicament. Such blindness has brought incalculable pain to this earth. It’s the blindness of self-seeking. Much as people react against such a biblical expression, the truth resounding all around us is that “the wages of sin is death”. Humanity’s despite of such an expression is the measure of it’s plight, and more than that, it has brought a complete failure to recognise that what we see on this earth as a consequence of our “sin” is a picture of what we shall see intensified after death if we do face up to our moral failure. We should not be too quick to dismiss eternal pain when we see pain all too readily spread out before us every day of this life.

After all, this is precisely what Jesus came to point out. Eternal consequences were not a matter he touched only lightly; it was a major theme. He not only made a strong call to repent now and live uprightly before our fellow human beings, but he spoke of eternal life to come and he spoke of with severe warning of the need to make peace with our Maker through his death. The plight of man is a matter for now and for eternity. That is what makes it so weighty.

The plight of man is much, much deeper and dangerous and threatening than we are prone to think. We should all be better if it made us shudder.


Bob


To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.