Rights
People tend to talk about their 'rights' in a catch-all manner, whereas the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights are much more tightly defined, including basic rights such as:
- the right to life
- freedom from slavery and torture
- right to a fair trial
- freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion
To the extent that the Convention on Human Rights is a helpful document, I would argue that it reflects God's character. For example:
- God gives life, both natural and spiritual. Our lives are in his hands alone; we are not to take that right back into human hands.
- God made all people equally in his image and all are equally loved. We are not to regard anyone as having more or less worth than another.
- Jesus died to free all who would accept him from the slavery to sin. We are not to put people into slavery or bondage of any kind.
- God is just; in Him there is no injustice. We are to act justly in all things.
- God gives us free choice over whether to accept Him or to turn our back on Him, as we wish. We are not to force, manipulate or coerce others in matters of religion.
Wrongs
But the 'rights agenda' goes far beyond the above, to grossly generalise our 'rights' into something like: I have a right to do anything I wish just so long as I don't hurt someone else. I can choose what to do with my life, how to spend my money and time, who to sleep with, even how and when to end my life - I have the right to choose all such things.
That's how the rights argument goes. And it seems difficult to argue against this; after all, what right do I have to tell you what to do or what is right for you?
This sounds just fine while we are thinking about the individual - be it 'me' or 'you'. But the reality is that these are not rights, they are wrongs! There is no such thing as an individual isolated from all others. We have family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and acquaintances, not to mention people around the whole world who are affected by our choices and actions; even future generations are affected.
What I choose to do with my life, how I behave, how I spend my money, who I sleep with, even what I watch on TV in the privacy of my own home - all these affect others, directly or indirectly by channeling funds, providing a market or an audience. My every action impacts on others.
Although the 'rights' argument sounds fine when we are talking about individuals, in reality we live as relational beings. Margaret Thatcher once famously said, "There is no such thing as society" (though this quote is taken out of context), but actually there is no such thing as 'the individual'. My choices and behaviour always affect others; my 'rights' always impinge on your 'rights'.
The difference
The difference between human rights, as conceived by the European Convention, and the 'rights agenda' is one of focus. The former is about protecting people from abuse by others; the latter is about a promoting my own desires over others. This is no small distinction! The former (in a small way) reflects God's nature, the latter is self-centredness and sin.
The way forward
At one level the way forward is to deliberately make choices that will do good to others, respect their humanity and dignity, and enhance the community and environment for others in the present and the future. However, this is a very partial answer - for our attempts to do good to others are severely limited and always tainted with self-interest. The deeper answer comes in an unexpected form.
The Bible tells us that we have all fallen short of God's standards and gone our own way (Isaiah 53 v6); there is no good in us. Promoting our own desires over others is nothing but arrogance or selfishness. Moreover - though this is not Biblical language - the Bible makes clear that before God we have no rights whatsoever; he is the creator, we the creatures; he is Lord, we the subjects! This is not a message likely to win many friends in this rights-driven age!
However, although this message sounds disheartening, it is a paradox. There is a stark contrast: the devil says 'stand up for your rights', but ultimately offers self-centredness, unhappiness and destruction; Jesus says 'you have no rights' but offers peace, joy and life to those who will accept it.
Those promoting their own rights will find that they have bought a lie, and built on quicksand. For myself, I'm happy in knowing that I have no rights, but am in the safest possible place - in the hands of the all-powerful but loving God.
"I'm sorry, I didn't know, I didn't realise, I didn't think, it wasn't my fault ..."
We choose not to ask
We choose to fill our minds with trivia
We choose not to look into matters too deeply
We choose to listen only to the reassuring voices
We choose to spend our time being busy doing little of worth
We choose to think only about ourselves and our very small circle
We choose to speak fine-sounding but meaningless nonsense
We choose to shut our eyes and turn a blind eye
We choose not to address the difficult issues
We choose to believe the reassuring lies
We choose to go along with the crowd
We choose not to make the effort
We choose to be stupid
We choose our destiny.
"Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God." James 4 v4
"Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matthew 7 v13
You must have noticed how keen the advertisers are to have you worry about germs and bacteria. I'm not often on the side of advertisers, but in this case I can see their point.
After all, think of the other things we might be concerned about...
- World recession and the euro-crisis fills the headlines - which leads us to recognising that money is a particularly unreliable god
- Debt, the collapse of banks and the inequalities between the 'fat cats' and the rest of us - which challenges us to think about our personal spending and borrowing habits as well as to face our own greed
- The world running out of mineral and other vital natural resources, even drinkable water - which raises difficult questions about our own lifestyles
- The inequalities between the Western world and the under-developed nations - which touches on the existential guilt of those in the West for using much, much more than our fair share
- The rise of the BRIC nations (Brazil, India & China) and the decline of the West - which leaves us apprehensive about the future and challenges the basis of our security
- The rise in sexually transmitted infections and HIV - which belies the popular notion that sex is just for fun
- The breakdown of family life - which leaves us uprooted and blown about, feeling alone in a difficult world, trying to find some sort of connection
- And our place in eternity - which forces us to recognise our mortality and the choice of which God we serve.
It's no wonder we keep worrying about the germs instead.
And yet - if that is all we dare focus on - we miss out on the opportunity to find a God who is utterly reliable, knows all about justice and loving relationships, and can deal with our personal greed and insecurity and offer peace in the midst of a troubling world. And who then equips us to go and make a life-changing difference for others.
Alternatively, we can carry on worrying about the germs.
There is a dangerous double message in our media.
On the one hand, you are presented with choice on every side and are the keystone of our capitalist economy, with companies everywhere ready and eager to pander to your every wish. You, as consumer, reign: "You are worth it".
But if you listen to the adverts a little more carefully, it also appears that you are fair game for manipulation, exploitation, blinding with fake science and are regarded as a mere consumer, there to be exploited and ripped off. You are there to be sweet talked until you hand over your cash, but are seen as devoid of intelligence, common sense, humanity or dignity. You are not worth it, apparently, after all. And this subtext eats into our soul all the while we are preferring to hear the positive message.
Contrast this with the message of Christianity, which says you are a sinner: your every thought and action springs from pride or greed or worse - yet you are so utterly loved that God sent his only Son, Jesus, to die in your place and pay the penalty for your sinfulness with his life. You are worth it!
It's a shocking contrast: the media speaks nice sounding but hollow words, which have a financial and psychological price attached. Christianity speaks harsh-sounding truth, but with the deepest comfort on offer, and the life-sentence already paid!
It seems to be common for people to think that faith comes into play when we cannot explain something. This is a fundamental error in understanding of the nature of faith, at least where it applies to Christianity.
There is a common confusion between 'religion' arising from what we do not understand and cannot explain, and faith which is founded on sure belief.
It is said that 'nature abhors a vacuum', and likewise our minds hate not knowing. There is a deep longing within us all to find explanations for what we do not understand, and where the information and facts are missing, we turn to all manner of means for filling the gap in order to construct some kind of understanding.
So for many people, a kind of religion fills the gap, providing fragile comfort against what is unknown and unsettling.
But this is not to be confused with Christian faith. Rather, this is a 'child's comforter', and is indeed a mental crutch and a delusion! It is akin to superstition. Where one's 'faith' is based on nothing more than filling the gaps we cannot explain, then this is not faith at all. Moreover it is very shaky ground on which to build one's life, for gradually, one piece at a time, as human understanding and knowledge grow - two steps forward and one back - so those areas of ignorance are filled in, and so such 'faith' is undermined and appears to become irrelevant.
In fact, this is largely why science is often thought of as being in opposition to Christianity. As some new scientific discovery is made, some new understanding gained, such 'faith' becomes obsolete. We can see this loss of 'faith' all around us.
But this is based on a false understanding of Christian faith. Do not confuse this with a faith based on a firm foundation!
So what is Christian faith, if not the above?
The Christian faith - rooted in real historical events - is to believe that Jesus is who he said he is: God incarnate. God is Spirit, and this belief is not a matter that can be tested, measured or scientifically proved or disproved. "We live in a world where, if you can measure it, it's real; and if you can't, then it's not real. I live in a world where the most important things are immeasurable." (1)
"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” (John 4 v24)
The spiritual dimension is something which science will never either prove or disprove. To apply science to Christian faith is like asking a blind man to tell us about the colour of something he or she cannot see. For this task, science is a blind guide! In fact, the image of a blind man having his eyes opened to see and understand who Jesus was, is a New Testament analogy. We will never see nor understand unless our 'eyes are opened', and this is a work of God (2 Corinthians 4 v4-6).
"No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (Luke 10 v22 & Matthew 11 v27). But the Bible also makes clear that this revelation is available not just to a select few, but to all who are prepared to put their lives into God's hands.
The Christian faith is no 'comforter' for a frightened child - it is full of hard truth; some of it difficult to understand and yet not beyond the understanding of the simplest soul; much of it flies in the face of worldly wisdom, yet it makes perfect sense.
Those who trust in science to explain everything, can continue to suck on their particular child's comforter... But the most important things in life are immeasurable and are based on faith.
There is no firmer foundation than believing in the God who came to save.
1. Quote from Lida Cardozo Kindersley
A light-hearted reply to the Book of Acts in the Bible
I've really enjoyed reading the sequel to your first book, Luke. (At least, I assume it was you who wrote it, as you forgot to sign it - which isn't like you; you're normally so meticulous about getting everything right - but I'm sure I recognised your writing.)
Anyway, it's an amazing story! After reading your previous letter, I was sure there was more to come, but this went beyond my wildest imaginings! Of course, when Jesus was put to death it looked like the whole thing had gone horribly wrong. I know that you wrote about his resurrection, but such things are really rather hard to believe, despite all the witnesses. But your new book certainly put paid to any doubts I may have had.
The coming of the Holy Spirit on all those who heard Peter speaking at Pentecost must have put the wind up them! Seriously, how did Peter manage such an excellent talk while all that commotion was going on - though I suppose that was the work of the Holy Spirit too? I reckon that some of the preachers I've heard could do with being empowered by the Holy Spirit.
It was great to hear about the explosive growth of the church that followed, and lovely to hear about the unity of the believers at that time. Again, the work of the Spirit was something else! Is that why those who try to do outreach in their own strength find it so unfruitful? Mind you, I know of churches these days who will barely speak to each other, so what sort of witness does that give?
And who'd have thought that Jesus would choose Saul to be his messenger - after all he'd done to persecute the early believers. A most unexpected turn of events, but a master-stroke! Who could have thought of that?
It must have been quite a shock for Peter to realise that God was interested in the Gentiles too. No wonder the believers back in Jerusalem got so hot under the collar about it! I have to admit I had to stop and think hard about this myself, too. But, again, the coming of the Holy Spirit upon them in such a clear way did put it beyond doubt. In fact I've heard that there are believers from all kinds of Christian churches who have been filled with the Spirit and not just the Pentecostals - Catholics, Methodists, even Evangelicals.
I didn't really understand why Saul changed his name to Paul. Was that to symbolise his complete change of heart? Anyway, he became quite a traveller; I trust he collected 'boat-miles'! To start with I wondered whether he just liked the adventure, but I quickly realised that he was following the leading of the Spirit, who was determined that the Good News should reach the whole world, not just Jerusalem or even just Samaria. Sometimes I just wish we'd think about reaching the next village, though the Spirit is still out and about reaching the rest of the world, of course.
I don't find all of Paul's writings easy to understand, so had a lot of sympathy for the poor man who fell asleep during one of his sermons. But, how amazing that Paul was able to bring him back to life after he had fallen from the third floor window! I don't remember the last time I saw such a miracle, but people still fall asleep in sermons, of course.
I was rather shocked, though, about all the riots and trouble that followed Paul everywhere. I'd never really thought that Christians would be in the middle of that kind of thing. But then I thought back to Jesus' own life, and he certainly faced a lot of opposition - right up to his death, of course. But it's rather a far cry from all the respectable Christians you tend to see nowadays...
Despite all that, Paul carried on preaching right to the end. I'd have got very anxious about having to speak in front of Governor Felix and King Agrippa, but Paul seemed as clear and assured as ever. Where did he get that peace and assurance from - was that also the work of the Holy Spirit? There are some Christians round here who could use some peace and assurance.
You stopped your account at a strange place. Did Paul get to speak in front of Caesar? I assume it was nearly the end for Paul, but I'm curious to know just what happened. If you ever write the next instalment, be sure to send me a copy.
Yours as ever,
Theophilus
PS Why did you call your book 'The Acts of the Apostles'? Surely it was the 'Acts of the Holy Spirit', as it was the Spirit who took the initiatives and was working through Peter, Paul and the other apostles.
PPS Did Paul take any pictures on his travels? If so, I wonder whether they could be put online so everyone can see. I haven't been to most of the places he visited, and it would be nice to be able to picture him there.
There is an ongoing frustration, even sometimes an exasperation, between those Christians who are careful to "uphold the truth", and those who seem more inclined to say "well, it's rather more complicated than that". This usually occurs in some argument over a matter of Biblical interpretation.
Paul in the New Testament (1 Cor 3) exhorts Christians to move from being spiritual babes taking milk to mature adults eating solid food, to put aside childish interests and become mature believers. Becoming more mature would seem to imply that we have ironed out many of our uncertainties and become clearer about the truth. And yet the opposite often appears to be true - it is the 'young hot-heads' are the ones who seem most certain of the rights and wrongs, and the 'older and wiser ones' who often seem less sure about the details and distinctions. Have these older people let go of their former zeal and clarity, and let worldly arguments and complexities cloud their judgement? Have they lost sight of the simple truth?
Perhaps that is the problem: the truth is not often simple.
False certainty
Certainty may arise out of ignorance or arrogance, not only from sure knowledge - and distinguishing between these can be very hard indeed. Moreover, passion about a subject more often arises out of some personal vested interest, rather than out of any objective understanding. So it is much more likely that when we are adamant that we are 'upholding the truth' about some issue, that we are merely holding tightly to our own preferred view of how things should be, and most at risk of using the Bible to back our personal cause.
Women in church leadership is a topical example, but there are many. It is possible to find some Biblical support for both positions.
Where is the place for saying 'we don't really know for sure', when not knowing is sometimes, perhaps often, an honest and mature answer? It may also be that the more mature believers take a stance that is best summed up by 'it doesn't matter that much' - while recognising that it matters greatly to those who feel strongly about it, it's not a matter that defines one's faith or warrants any splits.
Even those issues which do define a faith - for example, that God exists and came in human form as Jesus, whose death on the cross made possible the cleansing of sin - are still matters of faith and not 'right' or 'wrong'. The Christian faith is, after all, faith.
Where we are indeed upholding the truth, need that look the same as having a closed mind? And does being willing to seriously consider an opposing view on an issue of Christian teaching necessarily mean that you are compromising the truth?
The truth stands
In fact, the truth is never compromised - it does, and always will stand firm. Rather, it is we who are compromised - by our pride, our insecurity, our desire for certainty, our personal need to be 'right'. (See an earlier post: 'Craving-certainty')
God either exists or he doesn't. He was, or was not, shown through his Son Jesus. My careful or outspoken arguments one way or the other make no difference to the fact! At some future point the truth will be plainly known.
Remember, for now we see and understand the truth 'through a glass darkly' and so may too readily mistake our reflection for the truth. Perhaps the older and wiser Christians just have a clearer view of that grubby glass and are more prepared to put aside peripheral issues and focus on the heart of the matter? Maybe that is why St Paul, writing the letters in our New Testament, moved from asserting his right to being an apostle in his early writings (e.g. 1 Cor 9 v1) to saying in one of the last letters he wrote, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst" (1 Tim 1 v15). At the end of his life, Paul was sure of these things: that Christ came to save sinners, and that he was himself the vilest of sinners. In this context all other trivia falls away.
So the truth remains, totally untarnished, despite our total sinfulness.
