rabbi sacks and the soul of europe

Cranmer writes:

Every so often a sermon or lecture is delivered which merits being published in its entirety. In truth, the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks delivers them all too frequently, but the pithy brevity of the blog is hardly the optimum medium for dissemination. This one, on the question of ‘Has Europe Lost its Soul?’ was delivered today at The Pontifical Gregorian University. It is replete with wisdom and insight (for those who don’t have the time to read it, His Grace highlights some salient points). Lord Sacks’ grasp of history, theology, philosophy, politics and economics is profound.

‘Let me begin with a striking passage from Niall Ferguson’s recent book, Civilisation. In it he tells of how the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was given the task of discovering how the West, having lagged behind China for centuries, eventually overtook it and established itself in a position of world pre-eminence. At first, said the scholar, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we concluded it was because you had the best political system. Then we realised it was your economic system. “But in the past 20 years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

The Chinese scholar was right.’

Regarding capitalism he comments.

‘Instead of seeing the system as Adam Smith did, as a means of directing self- interest to the common good, it can become a means of empowering self-interest to the detriment of the common good. Instead of the market being framed by moral principles, it comes to substitute for moral principle. If you can buy it, negotiate it, earn it and afford it, then you are entitled to it – as the advertisers say – because you’re worth it. The market ceases to be merely a system and becomes an ideology in its own right.

The market gives us choices; so morality itself becomes just a set of choices in which right or wrong have no meaning beyond the satisfaction or frustration of desire.’

The whole summary can be found here.  His analysis of the malaise  is excellent; his solution is naturally somewhat lacking since being of Jewish faith he stumbles over the stumbling stone.   For Sacks, the ‘soul of Europe’ lies in recovering creation rather than pursuing redemption.  He concludes,

‘Stabilising the Euro is one thing, healing the culture that surrounds it is another. A world in which material values are everything and spiritual values nothing is neither a stable state nor a good society. The time has come for us to recover the Judeo-Christian ethic of human dignity in the image of God. ‘

For him, salvation lies in an ethic, in rediscovering our dignity as made in the image of God; it is the ancient  Judaistic doctrine of works that caused them to stumble over the stumbling stone.  He does not grasp that this image is hopelessly defaced and can only be renewed in Jesus Messiah.  He is the  true image of God made in true righteousness and holiness (unlike Adam) and only by submitting to his Lordship in redemption can we become through grace God’s sons and bearers of his image (Roms 8).  New birth in the Spirit is vital.  Sacks is a ‘teacher in Israel’ but apparently does not know these things (Jn 3).   The only healing for Europe’s ‘soul’ lies in the people of Europe embracing the gospel to the saving of their souls; they need a righteousness of God that is by faith, not of works lest any should boast.  As God’s people, we must pray that in his mercy the people of Europe will yet again hear the gospel and respond, including Jonathan Sacks.

freedom of speech

‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear’.”

George Orwell

commenting on and caring about homosexuality

On another blog I got involved in a discussion about homosexuality.  It was a discussion among professing Christians.  The initial blog was querying whether Christians should oppose homosexual marriage in the Public Square, however, soon the comments were raising other issues.  Below is a slightly adapted version of my response to the initial query and some other points raised, including whether I really cared about homosexuality.  I have not provided many texts to back up my ‘beliefs’, however, I thought the ‘beliefs’ themselves worth posting.

1. I believe all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage to be sinful and harmful. This includes homosexuality.

2. I believe homosexual behaviour to be a particularly obvious example of a reversal of the natural order that results in a self-destructive lifestyle for those who pursue it (Roms 1).

3. I believe that no practising homosexual can enter the Kingdom of God,  just as I believe that the sexually promiscuous, serial adulterers, thieves, swindlers, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and hypocrites equally have no place in the Kingdom (1 Cor 6).   Any who repent of such sins will  be accepted gladly, but sin repented must be forsaken.

3. Just as strongly as I believe that a homosexual lifestyle is sinful, destructive, and damning, I believe people who in their sexuality are homosexual should be treated, as all people should, with dignity, respect, acceptance and love. I would wish to teach children to respect the humanity of all while discriminating whether human behaviour is right or wrong.

4. Despite it being a belief that has fallen on hard times, I believe it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. This is our functional response to all flawed people i.e everyone (including oneself). If I may refer to the most demonized group in society without being thought to make them socially equivalent to homosexuals, it should be our response to paedophiles too.

5. I believe that all our behaviour as human beings affects other people to a greater or lesser extent. No behaviour is socially isolated or socially without consequence. As a result, socially there can be no such thing as absolute personal freedom. Governments must decide if certain behaviour is so detrimental to society that it should be curtailed by legislation. The freedoms of the one must be balanced against the good of the many.

6. I do not know how far, if at all, a ‘Christian ethic’ should be imposed on society. In general I am chary of this. However, in a pluralistic democratic society every individual has the right (some may say duty) to argue for what they believe to be for the common good. The hope is that as arguments are presented the democratic judgement of the people will be wise and good and just laws will result. However, I am realistic enough to recognise that wisdom is not always heeded and as I believe that true wisdom is biblical wisdom I believe the more post-Christian a society becomes the less likely it is for biblical wisdom to have a fair hearing far less prevail.

6. I believe that the way forward where differences exist is to present reasoned arguments as gently and courteously as possible (I am flawed in this far too often). Reasoning and seeking to do so dispassionately, should not be misunderstood as not caring, rather the opposite.

7.  I believe that far more important and far more effective than any social engineering by law or education is the preaching of the gospel.  The call of the Church is to preach the gospel not impose a law. The Church should stay clear of politics.  How individual Christians  act politically as citizens is a matter of private conscience.

Finally, I care about homosexuality and what it means.

I care that people embrace a lifestyle that is destructive and will bring upon them God’s wrath. I care that we may so sanitize and normalize homosexuality that some who may have otherwise suppressed these desires and found ways to live with them apart from yielding to them will by our neutralizing embrace them. I care that by so doing these same folks may be that bit further trapped in sin and that it may be that bit harder for them to turn to Christ. I care that through legislation re civil gay marriage the institution of marriage is being eroded and the stabilising mores of society are being dismantled. I care about how this will adversely affect the next generation.

I care that the Church does not speak with a single voice re the sin of homosexuality. I care that in the church as in society efforts are being made to turn black into white and declare the clear, unclear.

I care above all that in all of this God’s glory is diminished. I care that his image is being deformed. I care that his will is being defied. I care that his grace and mercy are being disdained. I care that his church is being disloyal and dishonest.

why gay marriage is not a good idea

Over at Storied Theology is a post that has some helpful discussion on the merits and justice, or otherwise, of imposing a ‘Christian ethic’ on society.  I did not find the post itself particularly illuminating (in this occasion)  but did find some of the comments instructive, particularly some opposing gay marriage ( I confess my own comments were by far the weakest).  Below is a comment  by ‘Alastair’ that I found very helpful.  He has a number of others well worth reading.

I raised the case of abortion for two reasons. First, it is a case where it seems quite clear that ethics, grounded in large measure upon Christian convictions about life, are being imposed upon people in society. Second, it is an example of a case where a zoom lens view can be quite misleading. We need to expand our vision to include within it parties that are habitually excluded. For instance, in the case of abortion we need to look at the effect that it has on unborn children, on our concept of children more generally, on fathers and partners, on past and future generations, on communities and society more generally.

It is precisely such a ‘wide-angle lens’ approach that leads me to believe that gay marriage is oppressive and that an approach that sees it purely in terms of not getting in the way of individuals who wish to marry the person of their choice is hopelessly and dangerously myopic.

The institution of marriage is about far more than the granting of social approval and recognition to committed sexual partnerships. The institution of marriage protects and marks out a realm where we negotiate and experience some of the deepest realities of our human nature – sexual difference, procreation, kinship and blood relations, and the movement between the generations.

The institution of marriage protects the interests of children, their right to a lineage and a stable home, the norm and ideal of a relationship with one’s biological parents. By restricting sex to something to be undertaken within the lifelong commitment of the bonds of matrimony, the institution of marriage provides for the interests of children, presenting sex as a responsible act that needs to be open to potential consequences. This openness to the gift of children stands opposed to the sterile ideal represented by gay marriage, where sex is detached from consequences, where no child is unwanted or unchosen, where no child can make uninvited demands upon our lives.

Marriage expresses the value and importance of relationships that traverse the realm of sexual difference, bringing the two halves of humanity together in a union that transcends, negotiates, and creates a loving compromise of sexual differences. It recognizes the distinct phenomenology of human bodies, whereby male and female sexed bodies bear a natural relationship to each other, and the bodies of children bear a natural relationship to those of their parents.

Marriage protects the interests of society more generally and of past and future generations in the passing on of the social capital, which is a further reason why the openness of marriage to procreation and protecting the norm of biological kinship is important to it.

Marriage has traditionally functioned as a norm to which relationships are expected to conform, and as a participation in a larger transgenerational social project. Its norms and ideals are not merely placed upon married couples, but on society more generally (the expectation that people will be sexually abstinent outside of it, for instance). Gay marriage is merely another step in reorienting marriage to primarily serve the interests of individual couples and their bespoke lifestyle choices. The reduction of marriage from a norm to a lifestyle choice (is the argument for gay marriage really about expecting the gay community to conform to the norms of marriage or about validating a lifestyle choice?) has large social effects, most especially among the poorest.

GC comments on the effect that the change in the functional definition of marriage will have on Christians. Although this is a valid concern, I believe that the social dangers are far greater than this, reinforcing trends that have been ongoing for some time.

As for your claim about equality, you are just begging the question. ‘Equality’ is an empty word, unless it can be demonstrated that, relative to a particular standard, people are in fact equal. No one argues for the equality of blind and sighted drivers.

The issue here is whether, relative to the ends served by the institution of marriage and its grammar, committed gay partnerships (not, note, gay persons) are equal to heterosexual ones. This has to be demonstrated, not merely assumed.

I would argue that gay marriage is profoundly inequitable. Gay marriages would receive the privilege and status enjoyed by heterosexual marriages, while being incapable of serving or being open to the same ends. This isn’t justice at all.

co-belligerency

A helpful blog on this topic is to be found over at ‘Contrast’.  Below is a chunk from the blog.  Brandon quotes from John W Robbins, someone with experience of political life in N America.

‘If you’re going to take political action that is going to compromise the gospel, then you are sealing your own doom. Over the past 50 years, conservatives have spent tens of billions of dollars lobbying, trying to elect candidates, trying to organize in various ways. When I was a kid, I was out passing out literature for Barry Goldwater, back in 1964.

And what has it gained? Are we any better off, to borrow a campaign slogan – are we better off today than we were 50 years ago? What have all those conservatives and libertarians done with those billions of dollars that has shown any improvement in the political or the moral climate of the country?

Now, if that money had been put into the preaching of the gospel – the uncompromised, unvarnished, pure gospel, perhaps there would be something completely different to show for it. But it was put into compromised political action, and there’s nothing to show for it. Absolutely nothing. Tens of billions of dollars – when you think of all the campaigns, all the organizations.

And I’ve been involved – my [PhD] degree’s in political theory, political philosophy. I’ve been interested in politics all my life and have been involved from time to time, working on Capitol Hill. And I learned a very good lesson on Capitol Hill – that what happens there is of little consequence. That if one is interested in changing society, you don’t go to Capitol Hill, you preach the gospel.

If anybody is operating under the illusion that political action is going to make a significant change in society apart from a sea change in the beliefs in the American people, then they’re condemned to futility. They will waste their lives.’

ambassadors of a disputed king

Bill Kyles has an excellent article on the hidden glory of the church in Themelios.  Below is an appetizer.

Ambassadors of a Disputed King

As pastors there is much to discourage us. We can feel insignificant compared to the powerful and influential people of our age. We are engaged in what has been called a “perplexed profession” in our modern world, and many are seeking to make it more professional as a result. It is tempting to seek the recognition and validation of the culture around us.

Richard Neuhaus compares our present situation to that of being the ambassadors of a disputed king. Compared with other members of the diplomatic corps at the courts of the world, an ambassador for Christ is in an awkward position. Most ambassadors bear the authority of and are legitimated by the sovereignties that they represent. But the sovereignty of the one we claim to represent is itself in question. The claim is under the shadow of a history shadowed by powerful evidence against his sovereignty. The shadow will not be dispelled, the question will not be answered, until he returns in glory.

The temptation, Neuhaus suggests, is one of relieving the awkwardness of our position by accepting a lesser authority from another kingdom. In other words, we are tempted to play by their rules. We are tempted to use some power of this age—the power of money, academic reputation, political clout, or something else—to make the other members at the world’s court listen to us. But that is just what we must not do, for until he comes, our King is enthroned upon a cross; and he has called us to claim no authority but that of his sovereign, suffering love for the world. We are called to hold on to that mystery of faith.

interview with a vampire

Skip over to Denny Burk’s blog for an excellent video monologue from Anne Rice author of ‘Interview with a Vampire’.  She recounts her loss and eventual rediscovery of faith.  This is a really heartening video.  Well worth viewing.  Denny Burk comments,

‘When she [Anne Rice] was a young woman, her faith gave way to existentialist philosophy, and she became what she calls a “Christ-haunted atheist.” Her apostasy lasted for 38 years before she returned to the faith of her youth. It really is a remarkable story.’

the pope and harriet harman

Cranmer is a well known blog.  It is Conservative with a big ‘C’ politically and fairly conservative with a small ‘c’ religiously.  Its purpose is to examines ‘religio-political agendas with politico-religious objectives’ in society.  It is amusing, acerbic and apposite.  Below is an extract from blog on the recent climb-down by the Labour Party on the Equalities Bill due in no small part it appears to the public criticisms of the Pope.  Five Million Catholic votes no doubt matter to Labour at this point.  Whether you are blue or red (or yellow) politically Cranmer’s comments are on the button.

When it was decreed that ‘the Pope of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England’, it was a declaration that the government of England is not subject to any foreign prince or potentate.

But, like nature, politico-religiosity abhors a vacuüm.

The greatest sorrow and tragedy is that the Pope’s intervention has demonstrated the undeniable spiritual vacuum which emanates from the black hole within Lambeth Palace, and the almost total abdication of responsibility by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of course the Pope should not be ‘interfering’ in UK politics: that is the constitutional role of the Established Church. And yet, if they are silent, God will speak through another and say what He wants to say.

And the people are evidently listening, whatever their politics, religion, race, gender or sexuality: the Pope has articulated something of the English tradition of liberty and the instinct of the people for freedom from tyranny.

And the reality is that people now feel less threatened by the Pope than they do by their own government: they fear the Vatican less than they fear Parliament; they despise politics more than religion; they respect the Roman Catholic Church more than the Church of England; and they honour the Throne of St Peter more than the Throne of the United Kingdom.

It is a sad day indeed when we need the Pope to remind us of our history, customs and traditions.

But when we are already subject to a foreign power, unable to make our own laws or govern ourselves according to those customs and traditions, and when our Parliament, Government, Monarch and Church are all apparently complicit in that occupation, one must thank God that the King of the Vatican is prepared to ‘interfere’ and remind us of the source of our spiritual strength, the fount our political power and the origins of our philosophical greatness.

The rest of the blog can be found here.