Does “getting married” matter any more? Four years ago when I preached a series on the moral maze I asked a different question. I asked “Is living in sin alright now?” For the publicity in NSBC in 2013 that question appeared too blunt. So I rephrased it. But the issue is more relevant than ever. It used to be called “living in sin”. Now it’s called “living together.” So is living in sin alright now?

How times have changed! Nobody blinks and eye at male and females students sharing flats or houses. But just how many couples are there living together? The most recent analyses I can find are seven years old.

Office of National Statistics: “Cohabitation in Great Britain: past, present and future trends and attitudes”

In the ten years between 1996 and 2006 the number of cohabiting couples rose by 65 per cent from 1.4million to 2.3million. The number of married couples fell by 4 per cent to 12.1million.

The number of single-parent families leapt by 8 per cent since 1996, to reach 2.6million,

Now one in five women chooses to live with a man while they are in their early 20s rather than to marry or to stay single. More than one in five women have lived with a man before the age of 25 without being married. In the 1970s, only one in 100 women did that.

One more statistic – an average cohabitation is thought to last around three years, while a typical marriage runs for 11 years.

So is what used to be called “living in sin” alright now?

The Bible regards marriage both as a “one-flesh” spiritual union and as a covenant. From Genesis 2:24 (repeated in Ephesians 5:31) we can see that marriage is part of God’s plan for all people, not just Christians. It is a “Creation Ordinance.”

Eph 5: 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Marriage in Western Society has been based on the Jewish Christian pattern for thousands of years. In the Bible, marriage involves three elements:-
• A man will leave his father and mother i.e. leaving parents to form a new family;
• and be united to his wife i.e. some clearly visible joining process based on mutual promises of permanent commitment; a covenant relationship between man and wife recognized as binding by society as a whole.
• and they will become one flesh i.e. the formation of a spiritual one-flesh union through sexual intercourse.

The apostle Paul speaks of this “one flesh union” in 1 Corinthians 6:14-17. Sexual intercourse forms a spiritual bond between a man and a woman, a “one-flesh union” which links them. Adultery is any sexual act which creates that “one-flesh union” outside of its proper context, that is a covenant of faithfulness and lifelong commitment.

A couple are joined in God’s eyes when they commit themselves to one another according to God’s ideal of an exclusive and lifelong relationship, and are united by intercourse in a “one-flesh” bond.

To be a true marriage, the act of joining to form the new relationship also needs to be recognised by the wider community in some way. But we must be wary of defining too closely any particular set of legal or religious vows required for this second element in marriage, or else we risk condemning some entire cultures as “living in sin” just because their wedding customs do not correspond sufficiently closely to our ideals. Our western ideal of a couple falling madly in love with each other is not shared in some eastern countries where arranged marriages are still common. However, all civilized societies agree that marriage requires the meaningful consent of both husband and wife. Forced marriage against especially the wife’s wishes is wrong and not true marriage.

But in today’s world so many couples are choosing not to get married at all – but just live together as if they were man and wife. What should Christians say about that?

The definitions of the words the Bible uses for adultery clearly include any acts of “sex before marriage” and “sex outside marriage”. And in the Old Testament the penalty for adultery was death by stoning. The Bible clearly condemns “one-night-stands” as adultery and it also condemns couples living together without being married. But “living together” covers a wide variety of circumstances.

A male and female who share a flat together, for example, should not be assumed to be living together. Although that would have been unheard of 30 years ago, now it is not uncommon. Brothers and sisters have often lived under the same roof, and bachelors often used to live in digs with widowed or spinster landladies. In these days of high property prices and high rents it is not unusual for males and females to share a house or flat, even though my generation would find that situation highly embarrassing. It is also not necessarily wise, because of the temptations it can create, but simply living under the same roof as a person of the opposite sex you aren’t married to is not necessarily wrong or wicked. Of course if that leads that couple into having sex together outside marriage, then that is indeed still sin.

And individuals who drift from one short relationship to the next, a few weeks with one person and then on to another person for the next month, are still living in sin. That lifestyle is not acceptable to God.

But consider a radically different situation. A couple who are deeply devoted to each other. For each, the other is their first partner. They choose to set up home and live together as man and wife and live faithfully with each other their entire lives – but never actually have a marriage ceremony. Perhaps they say it is for financial reasons, they can’t afford the expense of a big wedding. Or they might say they want it to be their love that keeps them together and not some legal obligation. But in every respect they are the perfect married couple – except they never actually got married.

I don’t want to suggest that living together without being formally married is God’s perfect plan. But on the other hand, that is the situation of many couples who are living together. They are totally committed to each other. And sadly many non-Christians and new Christians are driven away from churches that condemn such couples from the outset for “living in sin”.

Wouldn’t it be better for churches to be prepared to show God’s love and welcome such a couple “as they are” and then lovingly challenge them to make a formal legal commitment to each other at an appropriate time later on.

I introduced you a couple of weeks ago to a little saying which I am finding helpful as we approach pastoral situation in the 21st century.
“We must welcome people as Jesus welcomed them, rely on the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin and leave it to God to be their Judge.”

We are living in a messed up world. Many folk in the world around are not living by Christian standards but by the mixed up values of a world which has rejected God. At one point we have talked about “lesser evil ethics”. That sometimes it might be the right course of action to do something which is in itself evil, as an alternative to some greater evil. The lie which, though regrettable, is the only way to save the life of an innocent person. To terminate a pregnancy, which although ending the life of an unborn baby saves the life of a mother who would otherwise die. We have talked about the tensions which sometimes exist between obeying different parts of scripture. The command to obey the civil authorities against the command to love our neighbour in a society where our innocent neighbours are being persecuted and mistreated. Tonight I would encouraget us to think about another tension which exists as we proclaim the gospel into a sinful world – the tension between showing God’s love to sinners and upholding God’s standards of marriage. I am not advocating compromise – just getting our priorities right!

Let me introduce five situations and just raise some issues. I am not going to provide answers – just ask the questions.

The first scenario is that couple who are living together faithfully as husband and wife even though they haven’t been married. The very liberal church they belonged to told them that living together was alright and that they didn’t need to get married. When they moved and began to think of starting a family, they went to a Baptist Church. The minister there told them that he would only consider marrying them after they had been living apart for six months. So then they changed churches and started worshipping with the church I was minister of, they didn’t want to talk about getting married. One church had misled them, another had rejected them. They were perfectly happy as they were.
So what does my church do?
• Do we insist they live apart before they talk about getting married? Or do we offer to marry them as soon as possible?
• Do we accept them as Christians into membership of the church? Or do we insist they get married first?

Another situation. A lapsed Christian comes along to the baptism of her younger sister. wearing just about as little as any woman I have ever seen in a church, deliberately intending to shock the very respectable church we were in. She is living with her boyfriend who is not a Christian and they have a little baby together. But as the months go by she makes friends in the church and rediscovers her Christian faith. She wants to become a member of the church. We suggest she might like to get married first – but her boyfriend doesn’t ever want to get married.
• Do we let her become a member of the church?
• Or do we tell her to take her baby and leave the boyfriend because she is “living in sin”?
I knew that woman had been a heroin addict. I discovered only recently that she had also been a page 3 girl. That story has a happy ending because in due course they get married, husband becomes a Christian, , the baby grows up to get baptized herself and the mum becomes a worship leader and Deacon in the church. And through that long, long process that church has also learned a lot about accepting people as they are.

A third situation. Christians. Church members. Son or daughter has left home and starts living with girlfriend or boyfriend with no thought of getting married.
• Do we disown them for living in sin?
• When offspring and partner come to stay, do we let them share a bedroom?

A fourth situation. A man or woman comes into the church and they are gloriously converted through Alpha. But they are living with somebody and they have children together but they are not married. Nevertheless they are saved and they ask to be baptized.
• Do we baptize them even though they aren’t married?
• Or do we say they have to leave their partner and their kids in order to be baptized?
• Do we let them become members of the church?
A complicated situation in a fallen world. What would Jesus do?

And just to make these situation a bit more complicated. Would it make any difference to our responses if any of the couples in these scenarios are of the same sex? Does that change what Jesus would do?

That brings us to our fifth scenario. It looks like the law on marriage will change and the state will say that couples of the same sex are not only entitled to enter a civil partnership but are actually allowed to be married. Our government is going to completely redefine marriage. Any time now a same-sex married couple could arrive at our church. Will we treat them any differently to the ways we treat a married couple? When it comes to offering baptism, or church membership for example. They will be legally married. What will we do?

No answers – just questions to start us thinking. Because reaching out with God’s love into this fallen world these are the kinds of questions we will need to answer – and probably much sooner than we expect.

“We must welcome people as Jesus welcomed them, rely on the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin and leave it to God to be their Judge.”

At the Baptist Assembly I was reminded of an amusing story of the time London Bible College was redeveloping its site and obtained a grant from the Sports Council towards building some tennis courts. There was some embarrassment when the plaque arrived bearing the legend, “Sponsored by Littlewoods Pools.” But then, some people might ask, what’s wrong with that?
Should Christians buy tickets for the National Lottery? What about raffle tickets at the school fete? Or a fiver on the Grand National? What about the Football Pools? Or online bingo, or online poker? What’s wrong with gambling? In the interests of honesty, perhaps I should say up front that this sermon could equally be entitled “20 reasons why Christians shouldn’t play the National Lottery and another 50 reasons why the National Lottery should be banned”!
I could just make a general statement: “gambling is just wrong.” But we need to think more deeply than that. What does the Bible say about gambling?
I could also make a “slippery slope” argument. We once helped a man who had a gambling habit. He had a good job, a good income and a lovely home, but his debts through betting on sporting events amounted to £80,000. It is self-evident that in some cases like that gambling completely wrecks lives. And the argument goes that even simple betting like playing the National Lottery is not just “a harmless flutter” but rather the start of a slippery slope which can become an obsessive habit which can lead to ruin. This is true. But then I believe there are other even more powerful arguments we can make that gambling is wrong, not only for Christians but for everybody.
GAMBLING IS BAD STEWARDSHIP
Listen to the parable of the Talents from Matthew 25.
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17 So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18 But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
(You will remember that something similar happened with the man who had been given two talents.)
24 “Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28 “ ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
As Christians we are accountable to God for how we use the treasures He has entrusted into our keeping. I remember a discussion we had as young people in our Youth Group forty years ago. Should Christians invest in Premium Bonds? Answer – no! Because we would be robbing God of the interest that money could be earning in the bank.
We may say, “It’s my money.” But the truth is it is all God’s money given to us to use wisely. Any form of gambling, even buying a lottery ticket, is a waste of God’s money.
When it comes to the National Lottery, the advertisements will tell you that it is just another way of giving to charity. Up until now around 30 billion pounds has been raised for “good causes” by the National Lottery. But in fact out of every pound spent on lottery tickets more than 50p is paid to winners in prize money. 12 pence goes to the government in Lottery Duty, or tax. Retailers earn around 5 pence in commission and operating costs are around 4 pence in the pound.
So out of one pound spent on the National Lottery only 28 pence goes to the famed good causes. Of that, around 15 pence goes toward sports, the arts and heritage projects. Leaving around 8 pence in the pound for health, education and environment projects. All non-charitable. Only 5 pence in the pound of National Lottery tickets actually goes to charities. So of those 30 billion pounds given to good causes, only £5 billion has gone to charities. 50 billion pounds has been paid out as prize money. And the government has collected more than £12 billion in Duty.
So buying a lottery ticket is not giving to charity. If people want to give to charity they can give the whole pound directly and get an extra 25 more back in Gift Aid. Not just giving 5p. And I mustn’t get started on the big questions which need to be asked about the kinds of charities which Lottery money supports. Some of those are Christians definitely wouldn’t want to be associated with or give money to!
The argument around stewardship does not only apply to Christians. There are many families and individuals struggling with poverty yet some of them would spend money on gambling before they would spend it on food. For them a big win on the pools or the lottery or a bet on the horses is their false hope of escape from poverty. In reality the gambling habit is part of their problem.
GAMBLING REINFORCES WRONG ATTITUDES TO MONEY
So many people in society think that money is all important. Money is the answer to all their problems. Money is the way to happiness. And gambling just reinforces these wrong attitudes.
People should not put their trust in wealth or possessions for their happiness or their security. People should put their trust in God. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus teaches us this.
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Money won’t buy happiness or peace or eternal security. Many people who have won big prizes of the Lottery or the Pools have discovered that money does not make them happy but instead wrecks their lives.

31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

The Parable of the Rich Fool is a solemn warning to anybody who rests their hopes on money or wealth or possessions.
Luke 12 16 And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17 He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
18 “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” ’
20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
21 “This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

Gambling encourages greed. There is something truly obscene about somebody being given in an instant more than they could earn in a lifetime, or ten lifetimes. I cannot imagine how a Christian who bought a winning lottery ticket could accept that kind of prize and square their conscience except by giving all that money away. Gambling just panders to greed.
And gambling contradicts one of the very important purposes of work.
God’s plan is that people should earn their keep. In 2 Thessalonians 3 Paul gave this rule.
6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
God did not create human beings to be idle but to be active. Not to be lazy but to work for their living. Winning money by gambling subverts this purpose of work. Whether it is by “games of chance” like the lottery or so-called “games of skill” such as poker or betting on the horses, gambling is all about obtaining money without effort, without rendering a service or exchanging goods or even receiving a gift from the generosity of others. Gambling is receiving a gift from the gullibility of others. In this way gambling is a perversion of the good uses for which money and wealth are intended.
The apostle Paul warns us that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
1 Timothy 6 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.
Gambling encourages people to love money more than God!

GAMBLING IS WORSHIPPING FALSE GODS
Paul encourages Christians to live a new life and become like Christ.
Colossians 3 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
Here is a list of serious sins: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires. And then at the end Paul adds another sin which is just as serious: greed, which is idolatry.
The ten commandments in Exodus 20 end with covetousness.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
But they begin with idol worship.
2“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3“You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

And here in Colossians 3:5 Paul tells us that greed is actually idolatry. People worshipping wealth and possessions are actually worshipping false gods.
Does anybody happen to know what the logo of the National Lottery is?
It is the hand of fate.
It is a hand with the first and middle fingers crossed, a superstitious symbol for luck. With the name “The National Lottery” and the strapline – “Life changing”. The hand of fate saying “It could be you.” Registered Trademark.
Gambling encourages people to put their trust in the false gods of luck or fate or destiny instead of in the one true God, Creator of heaven and earth.
Very many people would say they have their own “lucky numbers”, which they would choose if they were buying a lottery ticket. Some people would also have their own “unlucky numbers” and they would avoid living in a house with that number, or staying in a hotel room with that number, or avoid doing important things on that day in the month. Living your life by lucky numbers and unlucky numbers may just be superstition, but for some people it can become an evil trap!
You may remember that when the National Lottery started in 1994 one of the regular features was Mystic Meg, an astrologer and psychic who made her predictions of which numbers would win. Many gamblers look to astrology or psychics or other forms of fortune telling to choose their numbers or their winners. We should not forget that all forms of fortune telling are condemned in Scripture.
Deuteronomy 18 9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
If gambling leads a person to experiment in fortune-telling, that is a very dangerous doorway into danger.
So what’s wrong with gambling? It can be a slippery slope. It is bad stewardship and it reinforces wrong attitudes to money. Gambling can even be an expression of worshipping false gods. So should Christians gamble? Of course not! Should Christians ever buy a Lottery Ticket? I think not. Should we buy a raffle ticket at the school fete? I never would.
But what about churches or Christian organisations applying for and accepting funding from the National Lottery to repair their buildings or to fund charitable works with the community? Again, I don’t believe that is right. Lottery money is tainted with the debts of all the people who could not afford the tickets they bought and the greed of all the people who thought life could be different if only they got lucky.
So what’s wrong with gambling? There’s plenty wrong with gambling!

A month ago two bombs exploded near the finishing line of the Boston marathon killing three people and injuring 264. These were the latest attacks by extreme Islamists claiming to be in retaliation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The “war on terror” is not over.

On 24 January 1878, the Marxist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects. She threw down her gun without killing him, announcing; “I am a terrorist, not a killer.” The phrase “war on terrorism” was used the British colonial government in Palestine in the late 1940s to describe their efforts to end attacks by Zionist Jews. The British proclaimed a “War on Terrorism” against specific Zionist groups and anyone cooperating with them. The phrase “war on terrorism” was also used frequently by US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, to describe his campaigns against Libya and Nicaragua.

In 1990s under the Islamist extremist rule of the Taliban Al-Qaeda formed a large base of operations in Afghanistan, led by the radical Islamist Osama Bin Laden. Following bombings in Kenya and Tanzania,[15] U.S. President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US claimed were associated with al-Qaeda.

On the 11th of September 2001 the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York were destroyed in an attack two Boeing 767 aircraft hijacked by members of Al Aqaeda. 2,753 people were killed. On September 20, 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of congress, President George W. Bush launched his war on terror when he said, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” Bush did not say when he expected this would be achieved.

Since then a number of conventions and protocols designed to combat terrorism have become part of international law. In 2005 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism. So for most of the 21st century the major world powers have been involved in “the war on terror”. “The war on terror” is a soundbite which many politicians and analysts love to use and large segments of the media and the press love to talk about. But what does God think about “the war on terror”? At first hearing, a “war on terror” sounds like something God would approve of. A war against people being terrified, a war to prevent people having to live in terror, a war against terrorists and terrorism all sound very good ideas. But think a bit deeper and the issue is not so simple.

For a start, the name is just silly. “A war on terror.” Terror is not a place, it is not a group of people. Terror is an abstract noun. You can’t locate it or surround it. You can’t capture it or kill it. It can’t be destroyed by weapons or by signing a peace treaty. Terrorism is simply a tactic. At one level, the idea of “a war on terror” really is just as silly as “a war on the colour blue”.

And in ex-President Bush’s understanding, the war on terror will be a perpetual war – it will never end. He said it “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” In that same speech, he called the war “a task that does not end.” The word “war” is not necessarily appropriate, since there is no identifiable enemy or group enemies who have declared war or who need to be defeated and then there will be victory and peace. It is instead a battle against sin and evil which will never ever be won. Even if you use President Obama’s preferred language and talk about the war against “militancy” – it is an open ended conflict. Talk about a “war on terror” is just a way of justifying involvement in a number of different situations around the world without considering their individual distinctive circumstances. Anti-occupation insurgents in one place are NOT the same as international jehadists in other places. The actions of home-grown terrorists in one country do not necessarily justify military attacks on different groupings in other countries.

Just two years ago I asked, “What does God think about the death of Osama Bin Laden?” In that sermon I introduced the idea of a “just war.” Through the centuries Christians and other philosophers have been led to criteria which help them decide whether war is justifiable or not. Whether it is right to go to war and which methods are legitimate to use in warfare and which are not. The “just war” tradition seeks to provide moral guidance to political leaders as they consider the resort to force, and to provide guidance to military planners as they plan the conduct of the war and prosecute it. “Just war theory ” rests on Christian principles of loving your neighbour, protecting the innocent and defenceless, and the duty of the state to defend its people from evil. These “just war” traditions are now expressed in International Law in the Geneva and Hague conventions.

To start with, there are six things to think about when a nation is contemplating war.

1. War must be waged by a legitimate authority
that is, by the rightful ruler or government against an external enemy. So a sovereign state has a right to wage ware to protect its people. Terrorism is never “just war.” The real evil in terrorism is not that so many innocent people are killed. The heart of the evil is that only legitimate sovereign authorities have the right to wage war. Any use of force by local rulers, mercenaries or criminals is illegitimate.

2. War must be in a just cause
A just cause means defending the legitimate rights of the state, against an injustice already committed, an invasion or an attack, or an aggression against economic activity, or even an attack on a neighbour.

3. War must be undertaken with the right intention, which ultimately is a just and lasting peace.
A critical principle of just war is “right intentions.” “We make war that we may live in peace.” Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) Wars fought just to take what doesn’t belong to us or expand our borders or for revenge are unjust wars. A just war is not fought for self-interest but for the cause of justice and peace.

4. The principal of proportionality must apply –
The damage the war causes must bear relation to the seriousness of the issues over which war is declared. A minor injustice would not be sufficient to legitimise the major suffering a war produces.

5. The war should be a last resort,
All peaceful remedies must have been exhausted.

6. There should be a reasonable expectation of a successful outcome,
not as military triumph, of course, but in achieving the limitation of evil and a lasting peace.

That is a list of six things to consider when a nation is contemplating war. From a moral point of view the most important is the motivation, having the right intentions, “the eradication of some injustice which has befallen fellow human beings and which can be eliminated in no other way.” (David Brown)

But what about when the war has started? Some people (but none of them Christians) argue that once war has started then all methods should be employed to ensure that victory is achieved at a minimum of expense and time. Some suggest that morals are only for peacetime when conflicts can be resolved by peaceful means. They say that when it comes to war, “all things are fair”. They are wrong.

A seventh criterion in “just war theory” is concerned with HOW war is fought.

7. The MODE of conducting the war should be morally legitimate
A nation fighting for a just cause may still fight unjustly. Whatever the cause, nations are obliged to use just methods.

(a) The innocent must not be killed by indiscriminate slaughter.
In one word – discrimination. In war soldiers and other combatants become legitimate targets by being trained and armed, which in itself constitutes a sufficient threat to combatants on the other side. Those who join an army renounce their rights not to be targeted in war. But non-combatants (civilians, or ‘innocents’) should remain immune from attack. Innocent civilians must not be not killed or injured. They must be shielded from harm. They can never, for any reason whatsoever, be the targets of an attack. Modern warfare has become “total warfare,” where civilians as well as combatants have been treated as targets. But that is not legitimate in just war theory. There are certain tactics in war which have always been viewed as dishonourable. Attacking from beneath a flag or truce or surrender. Soldiers masquerading as civilians. The kind of suicide bombing that has taken place in Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel. Deliberately endangering civilians on either side by using them as a “human shield”. These tactics are universally judged to be unacceptable! Acts of terrorism are never acceptable because they are against innocent unsuspecting civilians. They do not “discriminate.”

(b) The war must not result in disproportionate evils to the enemy population, to the home populations or to the international community.
In one word – proportionality. Just war theory requires that the extent and violence of warfare are limited to minimise destruction and casualties. “Take no prisoners” violates that principle. A battle must end before it becomes a massacre. These principles of proportionality and discrimination exist to place limits on the violence of war.

“Just war theory” argues that the tactics of terrorism are always illegitimate and unacceptable. But just war theory also presents specific moral challenges to the legitimacy of the methods being used in this “war on terror”, particularly by USA. Before Iraq was invaded, the justification given was to prevent terrorist or other attacks by Iraq on the United States or other nations, not least by the perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction. Similar grounds were used to justify American and British presence in Afghanistan to remove the threat of Al-Qaeda terrorists. But such pre-emptive attacks are NOT acceptable under Just War theory. Invading a country that does not pose an imminent threat is also forbidden under international law. Extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan did not and do not present a “clear and present danger” to the Western world to an extent that justifies the level of military presence and the extent of collateral damage in those countries.

There are other problems with “the war on terror” as it has been fought by USA, and to some extent by the UK government. Some would say those governments have just used it as a slogan or a pretext to limit and abuse the human rights and civil liberties not only of foreigners but even of their own nationals. Critics have accused the US government of double standards and of many abuses of power. The confinement and treatment of suspected terrorists in Quantanamo Bay was not morally acceptable in the way it was carried out, and on balance the closure of the camp is a good thing. The practice of “rendition” with the security services perhaps involved in or aware of the torture of suspects was similarly indefensible.

It is a good thing that the UK has not followed USA in going overboard on “the war on terror.” For example after the London Bombings on July 7th 2005 the Director of Public Prosecutions said that those responsible for those acts of terrorism are not “soldiers” in a war, but “inadequates” who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He added that a “culture of legislative restraint” was needed in passing anti-terrorism laws, and that a “primary purpose” of the violent attacks was to tempt countries such as Britain to “abandon our values.” He stated that in the eyes of the UK criminal justice system, the response to terrorism had to be “proportionate, and grounded in due process and the rule of law”:
“London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered…were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ‘soldiers’. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws, and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.

The former head of MI5 Stella Rimington, has criticised the war on terror as a “huge overreation”. She has said that the way the USA has militarised and politicised “a war against terror” is entirely the wrong approach., and had decried the militarization and politicization of the U.S. efforts to be the wrong approach to terrorism. This January the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, wrote “ultimately, the notion (of “a war against terror”) is misleading and mistaken” and later said “Historians will judge whether [the notion] has done more harm than good”.

So all in all it is a good thing that the Obama administration requested that Pentagon staff members stop talking about the “war on terror.” The new language is apparently “Overseas Contingency Operation”.

But no-one can deny that over the last 12 years especially, “the war on terror” has changed the way we all feel about the world. Getting on board an aeroplane is a lot more complicated and laborious. Policemen carry guns in lots more public places than they used to. Everybody is more suspicious and fearful of strangers than we once were – especially foreigners in certain kinds of eastern dress. Anybody who knew anybody who has been killed or injured in the various terrorist attacks will see life a different way. Perhaps the greatest legacy that “the war on terror” has produced is one of fear. Fear of terrorism. Fear of the unknown enemy. Fear that at any moment a complete stranger will attack and kill and injure completely innocent people who are just going about their ordinary business. This is a fear stirred up by politicians. A fear fuelled by irresponsible media and press. But a fear which affects the lives of all of us and blights the lives of many. It is a fear which has allowed some democratic governments to do things which their people would otherwise not have allowed them to do.

What does God think about the war against terror? I think God wants us not to be afraid! In reality the risks each one of us face from extremists and terrorists are not much greater since September 11th 2001 than they were before. In 1993 an IRA bomb wrecked the area around Bishopsgate and Liverpool Street Station, killing 40 people, in an area which many Chelmsford people would know very well. In 1996 a similar bomb exploded not killing anybody but injuring hundreds and destroying much of the town centre of Manchester, the city I grew up in. However much the politicians and media have used phrases like “the war on terror” to stir up fear, we are not at war in the way we were when Nazi bombings were destroying our cities and frontline battles claiming the lives of thousands of our soldiers.

God would want us not to be afraid. There have always been evil men. Good people have always been at risk from evil – that is part of the problem of living in a fallen world. But God’s answer to the threat of attack is not military action in faraway countries, but faith in God’s protection. Psalm 37 invites us to put our trust in God.
1 Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong;
2 for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away.
7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes.
8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil.
9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land.
10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look for them, they will not be found. 11 But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace.

Remember the words of Jesus – Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth! Put your trust in God!

12 The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;
13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.
14 The wicked draw the sword and bend the bow to bring down the poor and needy,
to slay those whose ways are upright.
15 But their swords will pierce their own hearts, and their bows will be broken.
32 The wicked lie in wait for the righteous, seeking their very lives;
33 but the LORD will not leave them in their power or let them be condemned when brought to trial.
34 Wait for the LORD and keep his way. He will exalt you to inherit the land;
when the wicked are cut off, you will see it.

Whether the threat is international terrorists or home-grown criminals or vindictive neighbours – God wants us to put our trust in Him and not to fear.

And as well as ending fear, God wants to banish suspicion. “The war against terror” has fuelled suspicion and hatred especially against people whose skin may look different and who may follow a different religion but are still our neighbours in this global village. For their own reasons, some politicians and some newspapers use slogans like “the war on terror” to make us believe that every Arab and every Muslim is a terrorist. Those ideas are completely wrong, and just as evil and just as damaging anything any terrorist could do to us! We have to fight against suspicion and hatred and fear in every part of life.
18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, (1 John 4:18)

Time and again the Bible encourages us to put our trust in God.
Psalm 91
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty
2 I will say of the LORD, “He is my refuge and my fortress,my God, in whom I trust.”
3 Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.
4 He will cover you with his feathers,and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
5 You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,
6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.

Whatever the world may bring against us – trust in God. His love and faithfulness will never let us down. Whether it is the actually very remote threat of terrorism, or whether it is more obvious and immediate dangers, we should follow the advice of Psalm 37.

3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.
5 Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this:
6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.

“The word euthanasia is derived from two classical Greek words, eu meaning “good” and thanatos, meaning “death”; thus, the term literally means “good death.” The word refers to the process by which people’s deaths are intentionally brought about by themselves or others, sometimes for generally commendable ends such as the relief of pain and suffering. In other words, while some people use the term euthanasia only when one person is killed by another (i.e., “mercy killing”), the term is broad enough to also encompass suicide and assisted suicide as well as the withholding of life-sustaining care with the intention of ending a person’s life.” (Basic Questions on Suicide and Euthanasia – are they ever right? Gary p. Stewart, William R.Cutrer et al, Kregel, Grand Rapids 1998)

ACTIVE and PASSIVE euthanasia
ACTIVE EUTHANASIA – an active effort of the person or another person to end their own life. So in the end the person dies not of a disease or an injury but by a process they have introduced e.g. administering a lethal drug.
PASSIVE EUTHANASIA – withdrawing or withholding or refusing treatment which would prolong life e.g. switching off a respirator or deciding not to resuscitate. This is allowing a death which could be avoidable with that treatment, but not introducing a new cause of death.
In either case EUTHANASIA always involves an INTENTION to bring death, whether by the person themselves or another person or both.

DIRECT or INDIRECT EUTHANASIA
In DIRECT EUTHANASIA the person themselves carries out their wish to die. In INDIRECT EUTHANASIA another person performs the specific act which ends the patient’s life.

INVOLUNTARY, VOLUNTARY and NON-VOLUNTARY
VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA is when the patient themselves chooses that their life should end.
INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA is when the patient’s life is brought to an end against their expressed wishes.
NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA is when the patient is not in a position to express a wish to live or die. They may be in a coma or in a state of senility so that they cannot express their wishes. Equally another person may choose not to try to establish the patient’s wishes – that would still be described as non-voluntary euthanasia.
Whether euthanasia is voluntary, involuntary or non-voluntary depends on the WISHES of the patient.

Society and the law usually call EUTHANASIA which is active, direct and voluntary by the label SUICIDE. Attempted suicide is no longer against criminal law. Different philosophies and religions take differing views on whether suicide is immoral or sinful, or not.

Society and the law usually call EUTHANASIA which is active and non-voluntary by the label MURDER. Leaving aside situations such as soldiers in combat and questions of the death penalty, it is universally agreed that intentionally causing somebody to die against their wishes is wrong.

Difficult questions around euthanasia include the following.
1. Is there a moral difference between allowing death by withholding treatment and causing death by a specific act?
2. If a terminally ill patient is given pain-killing medication at such a high dose that it actually ends their life, some would justify that action by “the doctrine of double effect”. The acceptable intention was to remove pain, the (foreseeable and inevitable) side effect was to end life. Do we think that this “doctrine of double effect” is acceptable?
3. Is it acceptable for a doctor, who has sworn an oath to “do no harm” to ever do anything which actively causes a patient to die e.g. physician-assisted suicide (advocated in USA by among others Jack Kevorkian)?
4. Does any individual, including one suffering from continual pain or extreme disability, have a “right to die”?
5. If after a long and fulfilled life a person is facing massively reduced quality of life or continuous extreme pain, and they indicate an unambiguous wish to end their life, should that be supported?
6. If UK society were to make it legal (as it is in Netherlands or Switzerland) for a person to be given help to “death with dignity”, who should make the decision about when that time has come (e.g. doctors, courts?)
7. Would any change in the law to allow a person “the right to die” not be the thin edge of the wedge to causing death on grounds such as the “the treatment is too expensive” or “to spare the suffering of the relatives”? How could we then protect the rights of aging or incapable individuals when others (society or family) judge that their on-going care is becoming too expensive? In other words, how can we ensure that a “right to die” never becomes “an obligation to die”?

Key issues in the debate:

Personhood – is somebody in a terminal coma still a “person”?
The right to choose – note the overlap with debates on abortion
Quality of life” – a life worth living;
Utilitarian concerns – bringing about the greatest good
“You shall not commit murder” (Exodus 20:13) and the sanctity of life
“Where there’s life there’s hope!”

I have a further paper “Outlines of a Discussion” which I am happy to send by email.

189,931. That was the number of abortions for Women Resident in England and Wales during 2011. That was a 7.7% increase in the decade since 2001. Until today that makes almost one million abortions since 2008.

In 2011 for every 1000 women aged between 15 and 44 there were 18 abortions. That was more than double the rate recorded back in 1970. For every 1000 women aged 20, 33 had abortions. For every 1000 teenage girls aged between 14 and 18 there were 15 abortions. More than a third of women who had an abortion in 2011 had also previously had one or more abortions.

If you also look at the number of children born during 2011 it works out that roughly a quarter of all conceptions lead to legal abortions. In other words, in recent years in the UK for every 3 children born, there is also one abortion. For girls aged 18 years of age and under, 45% of all conceptions lead to legal abortions. Let me say that again. For teenage girls 18 and under, there are nearly as many abortions as there are babies born.

Only around 1% of all those abortions took place on the grounds of risks to the woman’s health. Another 1% took place on the grounds of risk that the child will be born with severe handicap. 98% of the abortions took place because of the category of “risks of mental health to the mother”. In other words, the mother chose not to keep her baby.

An American magazine survey ranked different sins in order of seriousness – from “guilty to the max” down to “blameless”, they found murder, rape, incest and child abuse at the top, with the least serious sins of smoking, swearing, telling white lies, not voting and nude sunbathing. Abortion came around half way down the list, just above parking in a handicapped parking bay, cheating on your income tax and calling in sick when you are not. Abortion was seen as a less serious sin than industrial spying, misrepresenting something you are selling or, curiously, atheism!

Let’s begin with a definition – abortion means prematurely ending a pregnancy by surgical or chemical means. Abortion has been practised for thousands of years. Advocates of abortion can always find very convincing reasons why it is socially desirable or even necessary.

Would you consider abortion in the following 3 situations sometimes put before medical students?
(1) The father has syphillis, the mother has TB. They have four children. The first is blind, the second is dead, the third is deaf, and the fourth has TB. The wife finds she’s pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?
(2) There’s a preacher and wife who are very, very, poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with number 15. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?
(3) A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s very upset. Would you consider recommending abortion?
In the first case, you have just prevented the birth of Beethoven. In the second case, you have prevented the birth of John Wesley. If you said yes to the third case, you have just prevented the birth of Jesus Christ!!

Although abortion has generally been practised with varying degrees of approval over the centuries, from the earliest days the church has always been against abortion.

Tertullian (end of 2nd century) “For us murder is once for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb. . . is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. . . . The fruit is always present in the seed.”

In the 20th century, any idea that abortion is murder was swept away by the women’s rights movement. The Modern argument in favour of abortion is based on the claim that a woman has the absolute right to choose what happens to her own body. If she doesn’t want to give birth to the child conceived and growing in her womb she doesn’t have to. She has the choice. Now there are major problems with this “pro-choice” view. The law does NOT give people any absolute right to do what they like with our own bodies. We have laws preventing harm about e.g. seat belts and crash helmets. Nor would anybody think it was morally acceptable for a person to mutilate themselves in order to increase income derived from begging.

Of course women should have choice. But the choice which ought to be exercised is the choice not to engage in sexual activity where pregnancy is a possible outcome. Once a woman has become pregnant she has an obligation to the completely foreseeable unborn baby in her womb! The greatest problem with the “Pro Choice” argument is the assumption that the growing baby, the foetus, is entirely part of the woman’s own body. If foetus is a separate person then woman does NOT have the choice to end its life. And in some respects at least the foetus obviously IS a separate person. Certainly the embryo is genetically different from the mother from conception onwards. The placenta, umbilical cord and amniotic fluid are formed by the developing embryo. And fertility programmes with surrogate mothers show that the embryo can grow in the womb of a woman who is not the genetic mother.

If the foetus is a separate person, as the “Pro Life” anti-abortion argument believes, then the foetus has a fundamental right to live which outweighs any rights the mother might have to choose. So key question in the ethics of abortion is “when does life begin”? At what stage does the foetus growing inside the mother turn from a potential person into a person with potential. When does life begin?

At birth? Obviously so – to kill a baby after birth is murder! Surely life begins earlier than that!

What about at the stage of “viability” – when the baby could be born and survive independently? Surely so! If the foetus is at a stage when a significant number of babies born prematurely would survive, then to prevent the live birth of the foetus later than that would surely be wrong. In UK at least, viability is seen as the dividing line and the law rightly prevents abortion later than 24 weeks except to save the mother’s life. A baby delivered as a still birth which has died in the womb is rightly mourned as if it had been born alive and then died. Such a baby is often given a proper funeral. Surely life has begun before then!

But what does the medical evidence actually say about when life begins?

Medical authorities determine a person to be “alive” if there is either a detectable heartbeat or brain-wave activity. Unborn children have detectable heartbeats at eighteen days (two and one-half weeks) after conception. Unborn babies have detectable brain-wave activity forty to 43 days (six weeks) after conception. Surely life has begun by then.

Almost a quarter (22%) of all the abortions in England in Wales in 2011 took place AFTER 9 weeks of pregnancy. EVEN THOUGH
o) heartbeat begins in the third week!
a) By 6 weeks: all vital organs are present; brain waves can be recorded.
b) By 8 weeks: baby responds to painful stimuli; can grasp objects.
c) By 10 weeks: fingerprints and footprints permanently engraved on the skin; foetus sucks its thumb.
d) By 11-12 weeks: foetus inhales and exhales amniotic fluid; shows distinct facial characteristics.

Yet around 10% of abortions in UK take place after 12 weeks. By 16 weeks: fingernails and eyelashes present; high activity level (e.g., kicking).
With medical advances an increasing proportion of premature babies are surviving, even some born as early as 23 weeks. But the law in UK says that abortion is legal up to 24 weeks!! The medical evidence seems very clear that the foetus has a life independent of the mother long, long before the 24 week legal limit!

When does life begin? – What does the Bible say?

The Bible makes NO distinction between a fetus and a child? “Consider the children of Isaac, Jacob and Esau. … Rebekah his wife conceived. But the children struggled together within her… And the Lord said to her:‘Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall serve the younger…” (Genesis 25:21-26). Although these two children were still “unborn” they were “alive.” They were still given the name of “children”. The Bible makes no distinction between a child and a foetus; that distinction originated with man!

The Bible teaches us that God is involved in the development of every human being, even in the womb!

Jer 1:4 ¶ The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Psa 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

So when does life begin? Long before 24 weeks! The Roman Catholic Church teaches that life begin at the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Life begins at conception – the point at which that individual’s genetic makeup is determined forever – the point at which that individual is created. That would be a simple point to mark. But choosing conception as the point where life begins has its problems. Studies suggest that around 40% of fertilized eggs are lost in the normal monthly cycle without any implication that pregnancy has begun. Identical twins are formed by the fertilized egg dividing AFTER conception. So most Protestant thinkers judge that a new human life begins the moment the egg implants into the womb. After that point of implantation, pregnancies do sometimes sadly end spontaneously without human intervention, but miscarriage is seen as the exception and development to birth is the norm.

So when does life begin? Certainly before birth. Certainly long before viability at 23 weeks or less. It seems to me certainly before brainwaves at 6 weeks or even heartbeat in the third week. Very early on the foetus is no longer just a potential person – it has become a person with potential. In my judgement, we should regard the beginning of life as that point after which a pregnancy will normally and naturally lead on to birth if there is no medical problem or human intervention. So in my view, life begins at implantation.

One final Scripture seems very relevant at this point.
The Sixth Commandment. EXODUS 20 :13 You shall not murder!

When does life begin? At least at implantation, if not a few days before at conception! Various issues do hinge on whether you see life beginning at conception (as the Roman Catholics do) or at implantation (the view of many Protestants). This distinction is very important if you are considering the ethics of methods of contraception like the coil or the morning after pill which prevent implantation. It also matters when you talk about in vitro fertilization treatments, test tube babies, human cloning, designer babies and stem cell research. We can come back to these issues another time.

I know I haven’t talked yet about whether it could be ever be right to terminate a pregnancy if the mother’s life is in mortal danger. I haven’t talked about abortion following rape or child abuse. I haven’t talked about abortion of a foetus which is known to be severely disabled. These are very complex and sensitive questions about which Christians, theologians and even Christian doctors all hold a range of opinions. We will talk again about how we should make our moral decisions and how sometimes in this sin-spoiled world we may need to choose between the lesser of two evils. Such “lesser evil” ethics lead many Christians to conclude that removing a foetus may be the right course of action in medical situations where that is the only way to save the life of the mother and otherwise both mother and baby would certainly die. Some would also agree that the trauma of pregnancy after rape or child abuse would be so psychologically and emotionally damaging to a mother that abortion may be permissible in that situation.

But abortions where such sensitive reasons exist represent only around 1% of abortions today. 99% of perfectly legal abortions in UK are for “social reasons”, which normally means nothing more than the woman choosing not to have a baby! No threat of life to the mother, no complications with the foetus, just abortion as contraception after the event when other contraception has failed, or not even been used, and a baby would just be “inconvenient.” Woman’s choice – but no choice for the baby who will never be born!

Whether life begins at conception or at implantation, either way, abortion does not simply prevent the potential of a person. Abortion ends a life which has already begun, the life of a person with potential! And killing people is wrong!

So what should be the Church’s response to abortion?

1. Love not judgement or condemnation for women who have had abortions. GOD HATES ABORTION BUT STILL LOVES ANY WOMAN WHO HAS HAD AN ABORTION !!!! Many women who have had abortions look back with hindsight and feel great guilt. But help, support and counselling and forgiveness are at hand for any woman in that situation!

2. Support for women who choose to keep their baby to full term and give birth. I have the greatest of respect for any woman who finds herself pregnant and makes the difficult decision to keep her baby. The church should do everything we can to help! In India Mother Teresa of Calcutta said “We are fighting abortion by adoption. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals, to the police stations. “Please do not destroy the child. We will take the child.”

3. The church should speak out with a prophetic voice – speak up for the unborn children! Joel Reiter said “I believe this society will one day look back at the horror of abortion, and critics will ask, “Where was the church?” Our society has indeed sacrificed its children on the altars of its false gods of convenience and “choice”.

Global warming is a problem

Global warming refers to changes in the earth’s climate observed as rises in the
earth’s global temperature. Global surface temperatures have increased by 0.76ºC
since the 19th century and eleven of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12
hottest years since records began in 1850. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate
Change or IPCC (a UN body consisting of 2,500 of the world’s top climate scientists)
predicts temperature rises of between 1.8°C and 4°C and perhaps even as high as
6.4°C by the end of the 21st century. Scientists tell us that if global temperature rise
exceeds 2 degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels, the consequences could be
disastrous. We’ve already seen rises of 0.7 degrees in the past 100 years so drastic
action is needed.

The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a natural process that keeps the earth’s temperature high
enough for us to live on it. When sunlight falls on the earth some of its heat energy is absorbed by the earth and then re-emitted as infra-red radiation. This re-emitted heat is then trapped in the earth’s atmosphere by ‘greenhouse gases’ such as carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane. These act like a blanket around the earth and enable life to exist on our planet.
However, there has been a dramatic increase in the levels of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial age began. This has enhanced the greenhouse effect, trapping more heat and increasing the earth’s temperature. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide in the atmostphere has increased by one third compared to pre-industrial years.
We burn fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) to heat and light our homes, and for industry and for transport. It is widely accepted by the scientific community that it is the burning of fossil fuels which produces this extra carbon dioxide and is the main cause of this ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’.

Global warming has many effects on the earth
• Sea level rise – as the oceans warm, water expands leading to rises in the sea level, washing away communities.
• There is also the threat of polar ice caps melting leading to an even more dramatic sea level rise.
• Many regions are experiencing huge variations in rainfall leading to droughts, floods and crop failures. These lead to hunger and a sudden increase in malnutrition. Too much rainfall bringing floods washes away crops and homes and livelihoods.
• Extreme weather events – as weather patterns change extreme weather events are becoming more commonplace. Heat waves and floods are likely to increase in intensity and frequency, leading to an increased number of disasters.
• Increase in diseases e.g. malaria as mosquitoes spread to new areas

Other impacts: The changes outlined above are likely to lead to increased migration to
urban areas; conflicts over food and water; Climate change will also have a huge impact on plant and animal biodiversity.

Global warming is a problem NOW

The impact of climate change is one of the greatest injustices of our time. The
developing world produces a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases that developed rich
countries produce – Latin America contributes only 4% of global emissions and Africa
3.5%. As a contrast, the US emits over 25% of greenhouse gases but only has 4% of
the world’s population. The world’s poorest people have contributed least to our changing climate yet they are hardest hit by the devastating effects.

Poor people are the least able to adapt to changes in their climate. They
_ are the most vulnerable to natural disasters
_ are the most reliant on harvests coming at the right time
_ tend to live on marginal and unsafe land
_ lack insurance and savings
_ find it difficult to move from affected regions.

According to the World Health Organisation, an extra 5 million serious illnesses and
150,000 deaths globally are already being caused by climate change.

Environmental refugees are people who are forced to leave their home to find food and shelter. Mounting pressure on vulnerable regions leads to tension and conflict. WHO predicts there could be 50 million environmental refugees by 2010 and 150 million by 2050 as a result of climate change.

Why Christians should care about Creation

1. God is a creator God with an active concern for all he has made. Psalm 104

2. God has created us in his own image to be responsible stewards of his creation.

Genesis 1:1-2:4 esp 1:26-28
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Human beings are to rule over the earth and subdue it – to take care of it as God’s representatives.

3. The New Testament attributes to Jesus an active and sustaining role in creation which we, as his disciples, are to honour. Heb 1, Col 1:15ff, John 1:1f

4. Loving out neighbours: ‘Love does no harm to its neighbour’ (Romans 13: 10). We
need to recognise our connection with the poor who are suffering most from climate
change. We should demonstrate our love and concern by taking action personally and
politically to tackle climate change.

So how should we respond to climate change?

DO NOT Jump on the “Creation Care is mission” bandwagon

“Christians need now … to accept the care of creation as integral to the theory and practice of mission.” (BMS)
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth (one of the five marks of mission 1988 Lambeth conference)
It is so much easier to speak out prophetically about global warming than it is to confront people (especially of other faiths) with the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are plenty of well-funded secular groups campaigning about climate change. Christian missionary organisations should focus on helping people and proclaiming the gospel. Creation care is not an aspect of mission – it is an aspect of ethical Christian living.
God cares about saving the planet – but God cares about saving people more!

DO NOT Turn a blind eye – fossil fuels are running out – oil will soon be too precious to burn

DO NOT Burden the developing nations with the problem of global warming – China and India
CO2 emissions of China roughly the same as USA – but for FIVE TIMES as many people

DO NOT Pursue “solutions” which save the planet but hurt people e.g. bio-fuels
It is a scandal that there are places in Africa and South America where people are starving because affordable local food crops have been replaced by more lucrative crops for producing bio-fuels like ethanol.

What can we do?

DO Pursue sensible new technologies –
Hydrogen fuel cells
Nuclear fission power to bridge the gap until nuclear fusion power is achievable
The Government is RIGHT to pursue nuclear power and Tear Fund and some other Christian organisations are short-sighted to oppose it

DO CARE FOR THE VICTIMS of global warming
Helping those suffering in natural disasters
Helping communities prepare for and adapt to global warming

DO PLAY YOUR PART:-

TEN TOP TIPS

SAVING ELECTRICITY Turning off lights+ using energy saving light bulbs – if every house installed 3 energy saving bulbs it would save the total amount of energy used for all UK street lighing

TURN IT OFF! 8% of household electricity is used to keep appliances on standby – turn them off! = a month’s free electricity every year

TURN IT DOWN Domestic energy use accounts for a quarter of UK carbon emissions and 80% of this is for heating. So one fifth of UK energy is used on heating homes. Turn thermostat on central heating and hot water down . Washing machine and dishwasher at lower temperatures

GO SOLAR Try a solar panel or two – garden lights – mobile phone chargers etc

RECYCLE PAPER – burned paper releases greenhouse gases. Register with the mail preference service to cut out unwanted junk mail – 90% of which is immediately binned unread.

RECYCLE Recycle other things – almost anything has an energy cost in its manufacture.

SHOP WISELY: About 1/3 of all food shopping ends up in landfill – many foods rot to produce methane gas which has 21x the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide

FOOD MILES
Think about how far food has travelled to get to you. Buy locally sourced produce and avoid foods shipped in by air. A kilo of apples from Australia costs a kilo of CO2 emissions. Of course you could always grow your own food?!

DRIVE WISELY Car travel creates 20% of all CO2 emissions in UK. Think about the miles we do and the fuel efficiency of the cars we drive. Drive wisely for maximum fuel economy – this can save 30% of emissions.

FLY WISELY: Think about how far we travel on holidays or business. A return long haul flight can DOUBLE your annual carbon footprint. Short haul flights are proportionally higher still.

Global warming is not just a future problem – it is a problem already in many parts of the world. Christians care about the planet because God cares about the planet. If we aren’t part of the solution we are part of the problem.

Global warming is a problem

Global warming refers to changes in the earth’s climate observed as rises in the
earth’s global temperature. Global surface temperatures have increased by 0.76ºC
since the 19th century and eleven of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12
hottest years since records began in 1850. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate
Change or IPCC (a UN body consisting of 2,500 of the world’s top climate scientists)
predicts temperature rises of between 1.8°C and 4°C and perhaps even as high as
6.4°C by the end of the 21st century. Scientists tell us that if global temperature rise
exceeds 2 degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels, the consequences could be
disastrous. We’ve already seen rises of 0.7 degrees in the past 100 years so drastic
action is needed.

The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a natural process that keeps the earth’s temperature high
enough for us to live on it. When sunlight falls on the earth some of its heat energy is absorbed by the earth and then re-emitted as infra-red radiation. This re-emitted heat is then trapped in the earth’s atmosphere by ‘greenhouse gases’ such as carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane. These act like a blanket around the earth and enable life to exist on our planet.
However, there has been a dramatic increase in the levels of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial age began. This has enhanced the greenhouse effect, trapping more heat and increasing the earth’s temperature. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, carbon dioxide in the atmostphere has increased by one third compared to pre-industrial years.
We burn fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) to heat and light our homes, and for industry and for transport. It is widely accepted by the scientific community that it is the burning of fossil fuels which produces this extra carbon dioxide and is the main cause of this ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’.

Global warming has many effects on the earth
• Sea level rise – as the oceans warm, water expands leading to rises in the sea level, washing away communities.
• There is also the threat of polar ice caps melting leading to an even more dramatic sea level rise.
• Many regions are experiencing huge variations in rainfall leading to droughts, floods and crop failures. These lead to hunger and a sudden increase in malnutrition. Too much rainfall bringing floods washes away crops and homes and livelihoods.
• Extreme weather events – as weather patterns change extreme weather events are becoming more commonplace. Heat waves and floods are likely to increase in intensity and frequency, leading to an increased number of disasters.
• Increase in diseases e.g. malaria as mosquitoes spread to new areas

Other impacts: The changes outlined above are likely to lead to increased migration to
urban areas; conflicts over food and water; Climate change will also have a huge impact on plant and animal biodiversity.

Global warming is a problem NOW

The impact of climate change is one of the greatest injustices of our time. The
developing world produces a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases that developed rich
countries produce – Latin America contributes only 4% of global emissions and Africa
3.5%. As a contrast, the US emits over 25% of greenhouse gases but only has 4% of
the world’s population. The world’s poorest people have contributed least to our changing climate yet they are hardest hit by the devastating effects.

Poor people are the least able to adapt to changes in their climate. They
_ are the most vulnerable to natural disasters
_ are the most reliant on harvests coming at the right time
_ tend to live on marginal and unsafe land
_ lack insurance and savings
_ find it difficult to move from affected regions.

According to the World Health Organisation, an extra 5 million serious illnesses and
150,000 deaths globally are already being caused by climate change.

Environmental refugees are people who are forced to leave their home to find food and shelter. Mounting pressure on vulnerable regions leads to tension and conflict. WHO predicts there could be 50 million environmental refugees by 2010 and 150 million by 2050 as a result of climate change.

Why Christians should care about Creation

1. God is a creator God with an active concern for all he has made. Psalm 104

2. God has created us in his own image to be responsible stewards of his creation.

Genesis 1:1-2:4 esp 1:26-28
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Human beings are to rule over the earth and subdue it – to take care of it as God’s representatives.

3. The New Testament attributes to Jesus an active and sustaining role in creation which we, as his disciples, are to honour. Heb 1, Col 1:15ff, John 1:1f

4. Loving out neighbours: ‘Love does no harm to its neighbour’ (Romans 13: 10). We
need to recognise our connection with the poor who are suffering most from climate
change. We should demonstrate our love and concern by taking action personally and
politically to tackle climate change.

So how should we respond to climate change?

DO NOT Jump on the “Creation Care is mission” bandwagon

“Christians need now … to accept the care of creation as integral to the theory and practice of mission.” (BMS)
To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth (one of the five marks of mission 1988 Lambeth conference)
It is so much easier to speak out prophetically about global warming than it is to confront people (especially of other faiths) with the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are plenty of well-funded secular groups campaigning about climate change. Christian missionary organisations should focus on helping people and proclaiming the gospel. Creation care is not an aspect of mission – it is an aspect of ethical Christian living.
God cares about saving the planet – but God cares about saving people more!

DO NOT Turn a blind eye – fossil fuels are running out – oil will soon be too precious to burn

DO NOT Burden the developing nations with the problem of global warming – China and India
CO2 emissions of China roughly the same as USA – but for FIVE TIMES as many people

DO NOT Pursue “solutions” which save the planet but hurt people e.g. bio-fuels
It is a scandal that there are places in Africa and South America where people are starving because affordable local food crops have been replaced by more lucrative crops for producing bio-fuels like ethanol.

What can we do?

DO Pursue sensible new technologies –
Hydrogen fuel cells
Nuclear fission power to bridge the gap until nuclear fusion power is achievable
The Government is RIGHT to pursue nuclear power and Tear Fund and some other Christian organisations are short-sighted to oppose it

DO CARE FOR THE VICTIMS of global warming
Helping those suffering in natural disasters
Helping communities prepare for and adapt to global warming

DO PLAY YOUR PART:-

TEN TOP TIPS

SAVING ELECTRICITY Turning off lights+ using energy saving light bulbs – if every house installed 3 energy saving bulbs it would save the total amount of energy used for all UK street lighing

TURN IT OFF! 8% of household electricity is used to keep appliances on standby – turn them off! = a month’s free electricity every year

TURN IT DOWN Domestic energy use accounts for a quarter of UK carbon emissions and 80% of this is for heating. So one fifth of UK energy is used on heating homes. Turn thermostat on central heating and hot water down . Washing machine and dishwasher at lower temperatures

GO SOLAR Try a solar panel or two – garden lights – mobile phone chargers etc

RECYCLE PAPER – burned paper releases greenhouse gases. Register with the mail preference service to cut out unwanted junk mail – 90% of which is immediately binned unread.

RECYCLE Recycle other things – almost anything has an energy cost in its manufacture.

SHOP WISELY: About 1/3 of all food shopping ends up in landfill – many foods rot to produce methane gas which has 21x the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide

FOOD MILES
Think about how far food has travelled to get to you. Buy locally sourced produce and avoid foods shipped in by air. A kilo of apples from Australia costs a kilo of CO2 emissions. Of course you could always grow your own food?!

DRIVE WISELY Car travel creates 20% of all CO2 emissions in UK. Think about the miles we do and the fuel efficiency of the cars we drive. Drive wisely for maximum fuel economy – this can save 30% of emissions.

FLY WISELY: Think about how far we travel on holidays or business. A return long haul flight can DOUBLE your annual carbon footprint. Short haul flights are proportionally higher still.

Global warming is not just a future problem – it is a problem already in many parts of the world. Christians care about the planet because God cares about the planet. If we aren’t part of the solution we are part of the problem.

How do we know what is right or wrong? Romans 13:1-10

We live in a complicated world – a moral maze. How do we know what is right or wrong? Abortion, Euthanasia, Stem cell research, global warming, the population explosion, being rich Christians in a world with so much hunger. How do we make moral choices in today’s world?

We are going to prepare the ground for discussing these issues in future weeks by exploring general principles tonight through one specific issue? Is it ever right for Christians to rebel against the state?

Romans 13 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves…. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Submit to the governing authorities – the Bible says. But what about in being a Christian in South Africa in the days of apartheid? Or indeed in America in the days when slavery was perfectly legal. Surely those Christians who stood up against oppression and discrimination were disobeying Romans13. What about those Christians who resorted to violent resistance? Christians like the German Lutheran Pastor Deitrick Bonhoeffer who conspired against the Third Reich and was involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler? Or how about those Christians who broke into the American air base at Greenham Common to protest against Nuclear weapons? Surely all of these were disobeying the clear commands of Scripture!

How can we know what is right and wrong in today’s world.

Some Christians will tell you it is easy. Just obey the rules God has given us in His Word, the Bible, his guidebook not just for Christians but for the whole of humanity.
Read the 10 commandments which God gave us. Read the words of the prophets and the words of Jesus. Just obeying the rules in the Bible and you will be ok.

In theory of course I agree with that approach. I absolutely agree that the Bible should be our ultimate authority in all matters of faith and conduct. I am totally committed to the inspiration, reliability and sufficiency of Scripture. But we live in a complicated and ever-changing world. We need to take great care as we apply the rules in the Bible to today’s world. As simple examples, we Christians claim to live by the Old Testament rules but completely ignore the Jewish laws about which foods are clean or unclean to eat. Christians of most traditions agree that the Bible condemns homosexual acts (and I agree with that understanding.) However most Christians also agree that commands found in the same book of the Bible, 1 Corinthians, about women always covering their heads during worship do not necessarily apply any more. So it is not so simple as to say that we should always “obey the rules in the Bible.” In practice there are some Bible rules which Christians disregard – for very good reasons. We will look at this issue in future weeks.

Then there is another important reason why “obeying the Bible rules” is only the beginning of ethics for Christians. There are situations and ethical dilemmas in todays world where the Bible doesn’t give us any rules at all! We should not be surprised to discover that the Bible doesnt mention Global Warming. Or population control. Or gender reassignment. Or genetic engineering. Stem cell research was not remotely envisaged in Bible times. What do we do when the Bible doesn’t give us any rules?

Vivisection and medical experimentation on animals was not contemplated in Bible times. Some people would suggest that animal experiments which lead to increased knowledge and possibly valuable medicines are more morally acceptable than the ways in the Old Testament animals were used at God’s command in ritual sacrifices.

Is suicide a sin? Church tradition has always said yes, but actually the Bible is silent on that question. If ending one’s own life is not explicitly forbidden then is helping somebody who wants to die to end their own life necessarily wrong? How do we decide what is right and wrong when there isn’t actually a specific rule in the Bible about euthanasia?

It is too simplistic to say that Christians just have to obey the Bible. What about all the dilemmas where the Bible doesn’t contain a rule to guide us.

Not only in situations where the Bible is silent, but actually in every situation, the Bible itself points us beyond specific rules to general principles by which we Christians must live our lives.

Romans 13:9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbour as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.
Here is the fundamental underlying principle of Christian ethics. Love. Loving God, and loving your neighbour as yourself.

Augustine said “love God, do what you like”, What he meant was that if we are truly loving God then that love will guide us in all our actions. A popular phrase today is “W_W_J_D? What would Jesus do?” How would Jesus express HIS love in this particular situation?

There are other general principles too of course. Principles of justice and righteousness. Principles of truth and honesty and integrity. And this is where Christian ethics in the real world gets very messy. Because there are situations where different Biblical rules or principles are in conflict – in tension.

Consider the 9th Commandment: Do not bear false witness. Do not lie. Christians have rightly always valued truth and the obligation always to tell the truth very highly. But you are a Christian in mainland Europe sheltering Jews against Nazi persecution in 1943. The soldiers are at the door demanding to know “Do you have any Jews hiding in your cellar?” Are you allowed to lie and say no?

Or what about the seventh commandment. Do not murder. Is it ever acceptable to take a human life? Is it ever acceptable for a Christian to take up arms to defend his country if that might involve killing the enemy. Is it ever acceptable to use “lethal force” when acting in self defence, or to save the life of an innocent child? Is killing people always wrong?

Many Christians believe that all human life is sacred and that includes the human embryo from the moment of conception. That makes all abortion wrong. But what about a situation in the early stages of pregnancy where the pregnant mother is about to die and the only way to save her life is to abort her baby. If the mother dies the baby will also surely die. Could it be that in that situation although it is always wrong to take human life, the right thing to do would be to abort the baby and save the mother’s life? We will discuss that specific issue in a few weeks time.

For now, let’s come back to our example for this evening. Is it ever right for Christians to rebel against the state? To stand up to the governing authorities? Even if that leads to violent resistance? Romans 13 is totally clear and unambiguous. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities … he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves…. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, There is the Bible rule. Rebellion is forbidden.

But there have been times in places in history when Christians have rebelled and led rebellion and hindsight and history have said they were right and justified in rebelling. South Africa and apartheid. Times of oppression and persecution even in recent years when Communist and Islamic States have declared evangelism or conversion to Christianity or gathering for worship illegal. Yet in those times believers have followed the apostles’ example in saying “We must obey God, not men”. They have even gone against these direct commands in Romans 13. And many Christians would say they have been right to do so.

When asked why they have disobeyed this specific Bible command to be subject to the ruling authorities, some Christians have said that they don’t believe Romans 13 applies any more. It may have applied in Bible times but it doesn’t apply today. Some people use similar arguments in discussions about issues such as homosexuality. The Bible doesn’t apply today.

But here in Romans 13 there is nothing to suggest that this command not to rebel is tied to its original context or its original culture. Six times the passage mentions God. The reason you obey the ruling authorities is because of God. God has established all the authorities – no exceptions – all authorities. Rebelling against authorities is rebelling against God. Rulers are God’s servants – obey them!

So Romans 13:1-6 are God’s commands for all people in all places. It is wrong to say that the rules in the Bible were for those days but the world has changed and Bible rules don’t apply in today’s world. That is a wrong idea here in Romans 13 and in many other places too. But if God’s rule still applies today – be subject to the ruling authorities – rebellion is wrong, then how can it ever be right to disobey such commands?

The answer given by many Christians in South Africa who rebelled against apartheid is this. That in rebelling they were following a greater command, a command which is more important than the command to obey authorities. They would say that they were obeying the greatest command of all – to love their neighbours. See the suffering and injustice of their black African neighbours, the obligation to love has taken priority over the specific command to be subject to authorities. Meeting the needs of those suffering under oppression have been more important than the command not to rebel.

What I am saying here is that in this messy sin-spoiled world, it is too simplistic to suggest that the Bible has a rule for everything and that all we need to do is learn the rules and live by the rules. In the real world, Bible rules and the fundamental principles of love and truth and justice which underpin them need to be applied very carefully. And sometimes it will turn out that those rules and principles will stand in tension with each other. Sometimes obeying one rule will lead to us disobeying another rule.

So to take the example of bearing false witness – not lying. You are a Christian in mainland Europe sheltering Jews against Nazi persecution in 1943. The soldiers are at the door demanding to know “Do you have any Jews hiding in your cellar?” Are you
allowed to lie and say no?

I believe that the right thing to do in that situation would be to tell a lie. To conceal the Jews in the cellar from the soldiers and so to save their lives. In my understanding that is the right thing to do because in that scenario the command to “love your neighbour” takes priority over telling the truth. I continue to believe that telling the truth is very important. It is a command which applies just as much today as ever it did. But in this messy world there may be just a few situations where the command to love will be in tension with the command to tell the truth.

Some philosophers and theologians would describe this as the principle of “the lesser of two evils.” To lie to the soldiers and protect lives is a “lesser evil” when it would be a “greater evil” to tell the truth and condemn those innocents to death.

In the same way, in South Africa, Christians argued that the command to love one’s neighbours took priority over the command to submit to the governing authorities. Again, I am NOT saying that the command not to rebel does not apply today. This is a general principle which is not tied to the original context of the church in Rome but is universal and timeless. In rebelling, a Christian will recognise that he is doing something which is in itself wrong. But he rebels against an unjust or oppressive reigime in order to obey the more important command to show God’s kind of love.

In the middle of the struggle against aparteid in South Africa, in a brave document entitled “A call of an end to unjust rule”, theologian Allan Boesak rightly pointed to love of neighbour as a possible motive for revolution. `It is the love for the neighbour which infuses, shapes and substantiates Christian action in the world. … the Christian is obligated to the neighbour, to unrestricted love.’

But at the same time the command not to rebel cannot be ignored. When love for neighbour leads Christians into protest or rebellion, the ` tension’ with submission to authority safeguards them from descending to situational ethics where `the end justifies the means’. Christian opposition to the state will be constrained to be humble, prayerful, regretful and moderate.
Rev Dr Dick France was vice-principal of London Bible College and taught me everything I know about the book of Romans. He wrote, “the apparently universal Christian conviction that at least some governments must be opposed … is surely better explained as a case of the “lesser evil”, where there is a conflict of principles, each in itself good, and divinely sanctioned. To resist government is bad in itself, but the alternative may be worse. … The same “conscience” which requires our submission to government … may also cause us to defy a particular government’s edicts to the point of advocating its overthrow.”

You may be thinking to yourself – surely if loving my neighbor required me to do something which was in and of itself wrong, like telling a lie or rebelling against the established authorities, then surely in such a situation I should simply do nothing. Better to take no action at all than to disobey one of the Bible’s rules. In fact – no! Doing nothing is not an option – because to fail to do good when we can is just as much wrong as doing something bad. Sins of omission can be as serious as sins of commission. To fail to take action can be a sin!

So although the Bible may command Christians to be subject to ruling authorities, and even though that Bible command still applies in today’s world, there may be times when it is not only permissible but actually imperative for Christians to disobey that command, in order to obey the greatest commandment which is to love our neighbour. Our neighbour may be suffering in a way that sitting around and doing nothing is not an acceptable way forward.

Bible rules, Bible principles and choosing the lesser of two evils. These are the kinds of ways Christian philosophers and theologians look at ethics in today’s moral maze. I have deliberately introduced these concepts using examples which are remote to our lives in Britain – although very pressing issues to our brothers and sisters suffering persecution in many parts of the world even today. Next week an issue we all DO have to form an opinion and take a side on – global warming!