Sermons and Studies

This sermon includes material I wrote which was quoted in articles in the Times Higher Education Supplement (Now Times Higher Education) although they managed to get my name wrong:)
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=203887

Hasn’t science disproved the Bible – specifically Creation? Genesis 1:1-27 060702

In our sermons we are looking at “Questions People are asking” and here is the question for today. “Hasn’t Science disproved the Bible – specifically Creation?”

Do we really believe that God created the Earth? Lots of people don’t. The media don’t. Most scientists don’t. Only ten days ago the science academies of 67 countries including our own Royal Society spoke out very strongly against the idea of a seven day creation, and in favour of the theory of evolution. They were particularly critical of teaching of what is called “Young Earth Creationism” in universities, and even to schoolchildren in “faith schools” in the north east of England. You may have seen their protest reported in the broadsheets or on internet news pages. The best coverage was in no less than four articles in the newspaper for academics, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, with another article and six letters to the editor last Friday too.

“Hasn’t Science disproved the Bible – specifically Creation?” The world’s scientists have just put this question on the agenda for public debate. So this morning I want to set the record straight about what I believe about Creation and Evolution, Science and Faith.

I want to make six simple points. I want to tell you all the points right at the beginning, so you know where I am going, and then unpack them one by one.

1) All Christians believe that God created the universe
2) Science assumes that everything came into existence by natural processes and random chance
3) Science will never prove decisively whether God created everything or not
4) Science gives us evidence which is consistent with intelligent design
5) 7 day “Young Earth Creationism” or “guided evolution” “Old Earth Creationism” is a matter of Biblical Interpretation for Christians
6) Focus on proving a 7-day creation distracts people from the more important task of pointing to God as Creator

So there are my six points – let me explain them in more detail. Some of them, like the first, will take a while to explain. Don’t worry because others are very short.

1) All Christians believe that God created the universe

i) The Nicene Creed:I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible
ii) Bible teaches that God is Creator: Creation out of nothing AND forming/shaping/designing

In Genesis 1-2 we read God created/made
Gen 1:1 heavens and the earth
1:21 creatures of sea and every living and moving thing
1:25 wild animals and livestock
1:26-27 human beings, male and female in His image
2:4 heavens and earth
2:19 “formed out of the ground” all the beasts of the field and birds of the air

We also find God specifically named as Creator in Genesis 5, 6 and 14, Exodus 20 and 31, Deuteronomy 4 and 32 Psalms 89, 104, 148 Ecclesiastes

Prophets like Amos, Habakkuk and Malachi call God creator, but it is a special theme of Isaiah

Isaiah 40:26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.
Isaiah 40:28 The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.
Isaiah 42: 5. This is what God the LORD says- he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
Isaiah 43, 45, 57
God is creator in PAUL: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy 4:4
And In letters of James 1:18, 1 Peter 4:19 and Hebrews

Revelation 4:11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

God is declared creator in the words of Jesus Himself: Mark 10:6 6 and Mark 13:19

Jesus is named as Creator –
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

God is our Creator – this is at the heart of what we believe!

2) Science assumes that everything came into existence by natural processes and random chance

From the subtle unchallenged assumption of evolution in David Attenborough’s natural history films, to the explicit anti-theism of Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones, science and the media are united in rejecting the idea of a Creator. Possibly the greatest Science Fiction author Isaac Asimov made the same mistake as very many people - “I am an atheist, out and out. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he does not that I don’t want to waste my time.”
The large majority of scientists close their minds to the evidence for God’s existence - so in the end he can’t see what many others can! But Christians HAVE seen that evidence. We have experienced the power of God and seen him at work! Scientists should NOT ignore that evidence, but rethink their scientific assumptions until their science fits with the real world! It was Albert Einstein who said “Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame.”

“Posterity will some day laugh at the foolishness of our modern materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature the more I am amazed at the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur

3) Science will never prove decisively whether God created everything or not

i) Knowing God as creator is a matter of faith Hebrews 11:3

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

This verse says to me that science will never ever give conclusive proof about the process of creation or even the existence of God. We will always need faith to interpret the scientific evidence correctly.

“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically-minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job.” J. B. Phillips (1906–1982)

ii) God is by definition outside/beyond/before the universe

iii) We need a “change of mind” to see God

Two people were walking along a river bank one day when they saw a man across the river. “How can we get across?” They shouted. “Why would you be wanting to do that then?” The man asked. “We want to get to the other side” they explained patiently. “Don’t be daft,” the man replied. “You’re already on the other side!” What we see depends on our point of view, on where we are standing to begin with

GESTALT SHIFT PICTURE - WHAT do u see in this picture? Young woman or old hag. BOTH are there in the picture. when mind switches from seeing one to other the picture hasnt changed, only your interpretation of it. Its possible to get so locked into seeing the picture in one particular way that you cant see the other. But once u have seen both it is impossible to argue that only one image is there and the other is not. Many examples of optical illusions where it takes a perception shift, a gestalt shift, to see the image in its different ways. Many people are so blinded by the way the media suggests that science has replaced God that they simply cannot see God. Some scientists are so locked into their way of looking at the world that they genuinely cannot see the evidence for God which is all around them. But for anyone who looks for it with the eye of faith, that evidence is plain to see. Scientists just need to switch their way of looking at the world – to move from a world which excludes God to a world which allows the possibility of God in it.

4) Science gives us evidence which is consistent with intelligent design

i) Examples of design - “Irreducible complexity”

Consider the wonders of nature; the complexity of human brain and eye, the action of enzymes, the interplay beween DNA, RNA and proteins in replication and inheritance, and countless other phenomena. It is so unlikely that these marvels “evolved” by pure chance, and sometimes in opposition to so-called natural selection. Design points to the existence of a Designer, the Architect of the Universe, “God”.

ii) The origins of spirituality

In Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 man is created in the (spiritual) image of God by the inbreathing of the breath (or spirit) of life. Many Christians understand this as God giving the dimension of spiritual experience to animals which had already developed through evolution, making them “Man” by giving them rational, moral and spiritual qualities. Psychologists and philosophers find it impossible to explain how human beings developed consciousness and conscience, and appreciation of beauty and the desire to pray and worship. Evolution never claims to explain these things, and never could! The Christian explanation is simple - God made us this way, in His image!

iii) A “finely-tuned” universe

Design/Guidance could be step by step interventions, or could be in the “fine-tuning” of universal constants creating a universe where life as we know it would come to exist. If we believe miracles happen (or have happened) then there is no problem in an old earth / guided evolution, God steering the development of life at key stages.

iv) The improbabilities of evolution by random chance alone

Even if evolution was the mechanism by which life as we know it came into existence on earth, it seems obvious to many people that the probability of such complicated beings as ourselves evolving by random chance alone is infinitesimally small. But we did! So that suggests to the eye of faith that God had a hand in our development now and then!

5) 7 day “Young Earth Creationism” versus “guided evolution” or “Old Earth Creationism” is a matter of Biblical Interpretation for Christians
i) Whole weight of Young Earth Creationism rests on interpreting Day as literal 24 hours

ii) You don’t have to believe in a 7-day creation to believe in the infallibility of the Bible
“Young Earth Creationists” say that if you don’t believe in a 7-day creation then you don’t believe in the authority of the Bible! That is just rubbish! Old Earth creationists are as committed to the authority and reliability of the Bible as anybody else – they are actually disagreeing over the meaning of just one word as it is used in just three passages of Scripture.

iii) Events of creation were revealed, not observed

Until Day 6 no humans around so not from human observation, had to have been revealed in some way – revelations subject to interpretation – more often symbolic than literal

iv) There are different kinds of language in the Bible: some is symbolic or metaphorical

When we approach a Bible passage we must try to work out what kind of language it is written in. Eternal and spiritual truths, things we can never fully understand or adequately describe, often can’t be expressed in literal language. So religious truth is usually expressed in words used symbolically or poetically, using similes and metaphors, sometimes bending language almost to breaking point. We make a big mistake if we try to understand literally language which was intended to be understood symbolically.

For example, think about when Jesus told his parables. Was the “Good Samaritan” a real living person? Did a genuine “Prodigal Son” ever leave his father? Were the parables history? These carefully constructed stories convey powerful spiritual truth without necessarily relating to historical events. We have to ask similar questions about the Creation Narratives in Genesis chapters 1-2. Are they intended to be scientific truth? “Is the language literal or is it instead parable, symbolic or poetical language?

“Old Earth Creationists”, like me, are just as committed to the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God. But we believe that Genesis is teaching religious and not scientific truth. So the language of the Biblical account of creation is symbolic rather than necessarily literal. Genesis teaches WHO it was who created the earth (God) and WHY, but not scientifically HOW it all took place.

Old Earth Creationists regard the “days” in Genesis as long periods of time. Other parts of the account are SURELY symbolic - God “said” (what language did God say it in?) God “breathed” into Adam’s nostrils. When we’re talking about what God “says” and “does” human language HAS to be symbolic. When it says “days” surely these are God’s days. It’s not necessarily right, and probably wrong, to insist that the days in Genesis 1-2 have to be understood as literal 24 hour periods. (There were not even a sun or a moon until the third day!)

Notice how well the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 actually fits with scientific ideas of evolution, ideas which did not come alone till thousands of years after Genesis was written. So we can accept the idea of development or evolution. There probably were dinosaurs, living and dying out before humans were created in that long long period of the fifth “day.

v) The word “day” does not necessarily refer to a 24-hour period:
(a) 2 Peter 3:8 (quoting Psa 90:4) ¶ But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
(b) Phrases such as “the Day of the Lord”

vi) Day could be from God’s perspective not human – no more problem!!!

vii) Language of Science or History as we know it is only 18th century onwards

It seems very unlikely that the writers were trying to produce a textbook of science and history. For one thing science and history as we know them have only been invented over the last few hundred years! Everything in Genesis 1-2 must have been revealed by God to those writers in ways that the people THEN could understand, not in the language of history and science which weren’t going to be invented for thousands of years. The Bible accounts need to be read in the context of the kinds of literature which were around when they were written, not as if they were written today just for us.

The problem which I have with Young Earth Creationists is that they are fighting the wrong war on the wrong battleground! The challenge is NOT to prove to the scientific world that the earth came into being in 7 days only 8000 years ago. The challenge which the Young Earth Creationists keep dodging is to prove to the wider world and the mainstream Church that the word “day” in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis HAS to carry the literal meaning of a 24 hour period of time, and cannot possibly in any way shape or form be symbolic language. That is not a question of science but a question of Biblical interpretation and systematic theology, and NONE of the so called “creation scientists” has enough training or competence in theology or linguistics or hermeneutics to begin to give a decent answer to that question. Until the 7 day creationists actually address that issue, competent theologians are not going to take them seriously, and nor are mainstream scientists!

6) Focus on proving a 7-day creation distracts people from the more important task of pointing to God as Creator

Almighty God is Creator of Heaven and Earth! Whether the earth was created in seven 24 hour days is an issue of Biblical interpretation, not science. The debate between science and seven day “Young Earth Creationism” is a red herring from the vital Christian message we have to proclaim about God as Creator.

i) Creation in 7 days is only mentioned in THREE places

Creation in seven days only THREE places –

Genesis 1-2, Genesis 2:3

Then the seven days of creation are given as the reason for the 4th commandment in Exodus 20 repeated in Exodus 31

Ex 31:17 the Sabbath, …. will be a sign between me and the Israelites for ever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.’”

But there is an interesting CHANGE of reason in 10 cmdmts as listed in Deuteronomy 5:14 where the reason given for the Sabbath is NOT the seven days of creation but instead Deut 5: 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

NO other references to 7 days of creation apart from one reference to the Sabbath quoting Exodus in Hebrews 4:3-4.

ii) Battle for “young earth” is a major barrier for some, especially scientists

Public arguments over Young Earth Creationism is likely to drive people away from God, not bring them to God. That certainly happened to some of my Cambridge friends who today are eminent scientists.

So, “Has science disproved the Bible, specifically creation?” You must make up your own mind. Science casts some doubts on whether creation took place over the space of seven 24 hour days just 8000 years ago. But I think that good principles of Biblical Interpretation cast doubt on whether the Bible really teaches Young Earth Creationism anyway. That all hinges on whether one single word “day” should be interpreted literally or symbolically!! What the Bible DEFINITELY teaches is that Almighty God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. With the eye of faith, we can see the Hand of the Designer, the eternal architect, in all He has made. And science which studies the wonders of creation will never ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of the Creator who is beyond and above His creation.

Revelation 4:11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

FAITH AND SCIENCE

In the Middle Ages they used to ring church bells during storms to drive away the storm demons. In many parts of world today if someone is sick call witchdoctor / medicine man / shamen to cast a spell to heal the sickness or to break the curse which has caused it. Things have changed in Western world by the 3rd Millenium. For 3 centuries our world has been turning away from beliefs in magic and religion and trusting instead in science. Isaaac Asimov has even described scientists as the New Magicians. We no longer explain the world world in terms of God or evil spirits but in terms of atoms and molecules and forces and reactions. When we are sick most people no longer pray - we turn to doctors, the new miracle workers. So religion and magic have lost their sway over lives of ordinary people. This process of “disenchantment” has one simple cause - the rise of modern science which leaves no room for God in His world.

I have to declare a Personal Interest in this area. I studied science at Cambridge and then taught chemistry and I.T. for 5 years at Watford Grammar School. It makes me nostalgic and almost sad to say that I can probably no longer call myself a scientist. I have also studied theology at London Bible College for 5 years and been a Baptist Minister for 23 years.

Of course there have been and still are many notable scientists who have a deep Christian faith. Many in our own church work in different branches of science. At university there were more Christians in the science and medical faculties any other departments. But there is the popular view that “science has disproved religion”, that “science has replaced religion”, “we dont need God any more”, even that “with the rise of science human beings have outgrown God.” This popular view comes not from science itself but from the media’s presentations of science and religion, from David Attenborough’ subtly atheistic natural history programs to Richard Dawkin’s explicit attacks on Christian faith.

I want to touch this evening on three big areas where science and religion clash. Or rather I should say “where bad science and bad religion clash”. Because Id want to argue that there is no conflict between GOOD science and GOOD religion at all! But the claims that “science has disproved religion” often focus on three areas: questions about the supernatural in general and miracles in particular, questions about the existence of God, and questions about creation and evolution and the Bible.

1 THE SUPERNATURAL

One popular view is that science has explained away everything supernatural. Science has explained away God. God couldnt have made the world, God couldnt answer prayers, God couldnt speak through prophets, because science has explained away God.

Of course this is a claim, an assertion and not an argument. The last quarter century has seen an immense backlash against the claims of science in the growing interest in the supernatural, the paranormal and the occult. People want to believe. The immense popularity of the X-files shows popular beliefs that “the truth is out there.”
“Why is it” Government agent Deep Throat asked FBI agent Fox Mulder “Why is it that in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary you are not dissuaded from your beliefs (in the paranormal)?” Mulder replied “Because the overwhelming evidence is not entirely dissuasive.”

Very many people do have an instinctive belief in the supernatural. But because there is also the popular belief that “science has disproved religion” they no longer look for the supernatural in the church or even in the other world religions, but instead turn to the occult, to mediums and seances and tarot and astrology. In this way mistaken ideas about science are proving very very dangerous!

The reason science can appear to exclude the supernatural is that its underlying presuppositions exclude the supernatural. At deepest of levels Science presumes that the only things which exist are those which can be observed and touched and experimented on. That is an assumption, a presupposition. Its a necessry assumption if you want to do work in science. But its a dangerously mistaken and limiting assumption if you want to live in the real world. Science is used to dealing with certain kinds of evidence - observations and measurements. The hardest thing I found in moving from studying science to studying theology was learning that there are different kinds of evidence as well as scientific experiments, the evidence of historical documents, or of personal testimony for example. These other kinds of evidence need different skills if you are to handle and interpret them properly. The world is overflowing with evidence for existence and activity of God - but sadly some scientists are so locked into their ways of handling evidence and their ways of looking at the world that they cant accept the testimony of Christians about answers to prayer or god speaking in dreams and visions. They want to put the Bible under a microscope instead of letting its truth touch their hearts.

Same problem comes when some scientists think about miracles “Miracles can’t happen” they say. Underlying assumption in science is that the same things keep on happening in the world. U do experiment today and get a certain result then if u do same experiment again tomorrow under same conditions you’ll get the same result. Thats how all “scientific laws” are worked out. If things didnt happen the same day after day u couldnt do any science at all!!! By definition a miracle is God breaking or suspending those scientific laws which He created and He sustains. God is Creator - He’s allowed to do that if He wants to. But science has problems with God breaking His own rules. Science has problems with anything happening today which wont happen again tomorrow unless God does the same miracle again then. Science has problems with any events which cant be experimented upon, anything where u cant control all the factors and only vary what u want to investigate. So BAD science rejects reports of miracles because such reports cant be handled in the ways science likes to.
To say “miracles dont happen” is an assumption. The most any person should say is that “if miracles do happen I havent seen any”. Thats the limits of how far science should go. And many of us HAVE seen miracles - healings, answers to prayer. I have experienced miracles myself. So I believe in the God who works miracles! Good science should never reject evidence of miracles just because it doesnt fit into its philosophy or conflicts with its presuppositions. Scientists should always reexamine their assumptions so they fit with the real world!

2. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically-minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job.” J. B. Phillips (1906–1982)

Some people confidently declare ‘‘there is no God’’ as if this were a proven fact. All anyone can reliably say is, ‘‘if there is a God I haven’t seen evidence of his existence yet’’. People who say ‘‘God does not exist’’ are only expressing their personal belief.
As a teenager I used to argue vigorously that God couldn’t exist. Then God proved me wrong.
Someone who declares that God cannot possibly exist is making the same mistake as someone who insists that Australia cannot possibly exist, just because they haven’t personally been there (yet). Or somebody who says “the Queen doesn’t exist” because he has never met Her Majesty, and refuses to believe the pictures or the people who claim they have met her!
Isaac Asimov made the same mistake as very many people - “I am an atheist, out and out. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he does not that I don’t want to waste my time.”
Asimov had closed his mind to the evidence for God’s existence - so in the end he could not see what many others can! But Christians HAVE seen that evidence. We have experienced the power of God and seen him at work! And scientists should NOT ignore that evidence, but rethink their scientific assumptions until their science fits with the real world!

“Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame.” ALBERT EINSTEIN

“Posterity will some day laugh at the foolishness of our modern materialistic philosophy. The more I study nature the more I am amazed at the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur

The way we all see the world, our “world view”, depends on where we are standing, where we are coming from.

Two people were walking along a river bank one day when they saw a man across the river. “How can we get across?” They shouted. “Why would you be wanting to do that then?” The man asked. “We want to get to the other side” they explained patiently. “Don’t be daft,” the man replied. “You’re already on the other side!”

And we don’t always interpret what we see correctly. Our interpretations can be distorted by our presuppositions, our preconceived ideas, the things we assume and take for granted.
Advert - “What do u see?” 1. Scruffy black man running along street behind a well-dressed white man. Is it a mugger chasing his victim? 2nd picture - pull back - wider picture shows Policeman in uniform running after the black man. Perhaps that confirms your interpretation. What do u see? Answer = picture of 2 policeman pursuing a criminal - black man was a detective in plain clothes. How we interpret what we see depends upon our point of view, our presuppositions, our world view. Especially if we only see half of the picture we may well completely misunderstand what we see.

Some scientists face this problem when they come to think about God. How we interpret stories, facts, events, evidence, is blinkered by our presuppositions.
We all know the story of boy who cried wolf. How one day a wolf actually came and attacked the flock but when the boy shouted “wolf” the villagers thought he was joking yet again and didnt come so the sheep and boy were killed. What’s the moral of that story?
We probably think it is about the importance of never telling lies. But maybe that just reflects our presuppositions. In Star Trek DS9 when Garek the alien Cardassian who had been a leader in their secret police was asked for the moral of that fable, he saw things differently. “Surely it is the importance of never telling the same lie twice!”
If a person starts off with the wrong assumptions, the same evidence can reinforce those wrong ideas!

GESTALT SHIFT PICTURES - WHAT do u see in this picture? Young woman or old hag? BOTH are there in the picture. when mind switches from seeing one to other the picture hasnt changed, only your interpretation of it. Its possible to get so locked into seeing the picture in one particular way that u cant see the other. But once u have seen both it is impossible to argue that only one image is there and the other is not. Many examples of optical illusions where it takes a perception shift, a gestalt shift, to see the image in its different ways. Many people are so blinded by the way the media suggests that science has replaced God that they simply cannot see God. Some scientists are so locked into their way of looking at the world that they genuinely cannot see the evidence for God which is all around them. But for anyone who looks for it that evidence is there plain to see.

3. CREATION AND EVOLUTION

Has evolution disproved the Bible Is the Bible account of God creating the world in 6 days true? Here I suggest the real issue is philosophical. It’s nothing to do with science and everything to do with how we understand the Bible. The real question is what do we mean by “truth”?

True or False? Consider the following statements. Are they true or false?

(a) 2 + 2 = 4
(b) force equals mass times acceleration
(c) Henry the Eighth had six wives
(d) “He’s got a frog in his throat.”
(e) Romeo loves Juliet.
(f) God is love.
(g) “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them.”

What do we mean by True and False?
- Mathematical truth starts from certain basic assumptions, or axioms, and derives from them by defined operations other “mathematical truths” which are proved totally theoretically.
- Truth in science is based on observations and experiments from which theories are deduced. A theory or model is only true if it successfully explains and predicts the results of practical experiments.
- Truth in historical events and people can still be accepted even though there may be little evidence remaining of what actually happened many centuries ago.
- “Romeo loves Juliet” cannot be proved scientifically or historically, but only in the experience of the people in love. (Here – true in the story world, but did they ever exist? Does that matter?)

There are many different areas of knowledge; mathematics, science, history, literature, morality, philosophy and religion too. Each area has different ideas of truth within it, with different ways of determining what is true or false. Historical facts cannot be proved “true” mathematically because the rules of mathematics do not apply to history. Moral questions of right and wrong, like “Is murder wrong?” cannot be decided using scientific principles alone, because the scientific method of reasoning is not necessarily valid when applied to moral issues.

Different Kinds of Language

The different kinds of knowledge can use language in different ways. Poetry is not always literal. Consider,
“Tiger Tiger burning bright, in the forest of the night.”
This poetry does not mean that the tiger is actually on fire!

Religious truth is a distinct kind of truth concerned with things infinite, eternal and spiritual, things we can never fully understand or adequately describe. Religious truth cant always be explained in the language or judged by the sorts of ways of thinking which belong to other kinds of knowledge.
Eternal and spiritual truths often can’t be expressed in literal language. So religious truth is usually expressed in words used symbolically or poetically, using similes and metaphors, sometimes bending language almost to breaking point. We make a big mistake if we try to understand literally language which was intended to be understood symbolically. It’s an issue of interpretation.

When we approach the Bible we must try to work out what kind of language it is, what kind of truth it is trying to communicate. There are many different kinds of language in the Bible -history, parable, law, letter, proverb, and the highly symbolic language of prophecy and revelation.

As an example, think about when Jesus told his parables. Was he quoting historical truth? Was the “Good Samaritan” a real living person? Did a genuine “Prodigal Son” ever leave his father? Were the parables history? Or were they instead carefully constructed stories which convey spiritual truth.

We have to ask similar questions about the Creation Narratives in Genesis chapters 1-2. “Are they intended to be scientific truth?” “Is the language literal or is it instead symbolic or poetical, or some combination of these kinds of language (genres)?” It seems very unlikely that the writers were trying to produce a textbook of science and history. For one thing science and history as we know them have only been invented over the last few hundred years! These Bible accounts of creation have been around for 3000 years or more. It seems much more likely that Genesis was written to present religious truth in an enduring form.

Let’s remember another obvious but very important thing which makes the Creation Stories in Genesis different from every other part of the Bible. From Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 onwards people were actually there - people who could tell their stories to their children. But for the accounts of creation NOBODY was there! Everything in Genesis 1-2 must have been revealed by God to those writers in some way because before there were people on earth NOBODY was there! And it would have been revealed in ways that the people THEN could understand, not in the language of history and science which weren’t going to be invented for thousands of years.

When it comes to creation science and religion are asking different questions. Science wants to know HOW the universe began, HOW did life begin and develop. Religion is asking WHO was behind it all, WHY did life begin, what is the PURPOSE of it all?

SO How did the Universe begin? And How did life on Earth develop?

If people are honest, we just don’t know about the question of how the universe, and in particular life on earth, began. There are three kinds of approaches to the origin of the universe which many people believe today.

(a) Purely Scientific Views:
The Universe began with a “big bang” or else it has always existed in a “steady state”, or if Stephen Hawking is right it doesn’t even need to have a beginning at all. Then over the millenia, life has developed through evolution, a perfectly natural and chance process. This view is remarkably popular with non-scientists who often think that everything can be explained by “science”. Good scientists know it’s not that simple!

(b) Biblical Creation View:
One Jewish and Christian view is that the account of creation found in the Bible (in Genesis chs 1-2) is literally, historically and scientifically true. So God took six days of 24 hours to create the world and evolution (which is after all only a theory, not a proven fact) cannot have occurred.

(c) Symbolic Biblical View:
Other Christians, just as committed to the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God, believe that Genesis is teaching religious and not scientific truth. So the language of the Biblical account of creation is symbolic rather than necessarily literal. So Genesis teaches WHO it was who created the earth (God) and WHY, but not scientifically HOW it all took place. The issue is the correct interpretation of the texts.

This view regards the “days” in Genesis as long periods of time. This is a perfectly acceptable symbolic meaning for the word for day yom found elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. Psalm 90:4).
Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch
in the night.

Other parts of the account are SURELY symbolic - God “said” (what language did God say it in?) God “breathed” into Adam’s nostrils. when we’re talking about God human language HAS to be symbolic. When it says “days” surely these are God’s days. It’s not necessarly, and probably a wrong way to approach the Bible as God’s Word, to insist that the days are literal 24 hour periods. (There wasnt even a sun or a moon until the third day!)

Notice how well the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 actually fits with scientific ideas of evolution, ideas which didnt come alone till thousands of years after Genesis was written. So we can accept the idea of development or evolution. There probably were dinosaurs, living and dying out before humans were created in that long long period of the fifth “day” in Genesis 1:20 .

So evolution probably happened. But sensible scientists will realise that the probability of life in all its complexity appearing by the operation of mere random chance would be exceedingly low! So we believe God must have intervened by “guiding” evolution, continuing the process of creation.

Consider the wonders of nature; the complexity of human brain and eye, the action of enzymes, the interplay beween DNA, RNA and proteins in replication and inheritance, and countless other phenomena. It is so unlikely that these marvels “evolved” by pure chance, and sometimes in opposition to so-called natural selection. Design points to the existence of a Designer, the Architect of the Universe, “God”.

In Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 man is created in the (spiritual) image of God by the inbreathing of the breath (or spirit) of life. Many Christians understand this as God giving the dimension of spiritual experience to animals which had already developed through evolution, making them “Man” by giving them rational, moral and spiritual qualities. Psychologists and philosophers find it impossible to explain how human beings developed consciousness and conscience, and appreciation of beauty and the desire to pray and worship. Evolution never claims to explain these things, and never could! The Christian explanation is simple - God made us this way, in His image!

Science describes the way the world works. Faith is concerned with the God who is above science, who created and sustains the scientific laws which scientists study but is inevitably Himself outside the scope of “scientific” study. Science does not, and cannot, prove that God doesn’t exist. Science is very good at explaining how this world works and how we can control it. But it has its limits - and GOOD scientists recognise those limits. Science will never ultimately be able to explain how the world began. Science cannot give us any answers about things in the universe which we cannot see or touch, the whole spiritual realm.

The most important questions about creation are these. WHY did life begin? WHAT IS the purpose of our existence? WHAT IS the meaning of life? Science can’t answer these questions. The Bible can!

Faith and science: the supernatural and miracles, the existence of God, creation and evolution - things to say to your friends when they ask, things to think about.

Considering the morality of the conflict between Israel and Gaza - preached on the morning when a ceasefire was agreed after three weeks of intense fighting in Gaza.

The Gaza Strip is a piece of land on the Mediterranean Coast about 25 miles long and between 4 and 8 miles wide which is the home of around 1.4 million Palestinian Arabs. It borders on Israel to the South and East and Egypt to the North. For many years there has been conflict between Israelis and Palestinians over Gaza. Israel took control there after the six days war of 1967 but handed control over to the Palestinian Authority in 1994. In elections in January 2006 HAMAS (the Islamic Resistance Movement) won political control from FATAH (Palestine Liberation Movement). Since then HAMAS has intensified its attacks on Israel by suicide bombings and by rocket and mortar attacks across the border. Christian Friends of Israel reported recently that over the last 3 years HAMAS have fired around 5,800 rockets into Israel. On December 19th HAMAS refused to renew a six month ceasefire. On Christmas Eve they fired more than 50 rockets and on Christmas Day more than 80 rockets into Israel.

On December 27th Israel responded with air strikes into Gaza, followed by a land offensive with tanks and troops. In the last three weeks around 1,200 Palestinians have been killed and more than five thousand have been injured. In that time 10 Israeli soldiers have died in combat and 3 Israeli civilians have died from Palestinian rockets. This morning under enormous international pressure Israel have declared a unilateral ceasefire, but they have stated they will not withdrawn their land forces from Gaza yet. HAMAS is refusing to accept the ceasefire as long as Israeli troops are still in Gaza.

The situation in Gaza is tragic. It is also immoral. There are precious few rights and many atrocious wrongs on both sides. I want us to consider those rights and wrongs this morning.

Many Christians including our Baptist forefathers the Anabaptists have adopted a position of pacifism. Jesus taught “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God. … Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. For a pacifist using force is the direct opposite to loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Love and war are never compatible.

On the other hand, while through history some Christians have been pacifists, the majority have not. In this sin-spoiled world, the majority of Christians have believed that there could be some situations when violence, though undesirable, becomes necessary. In self defence, a “Kill or be killed” situation, violence might be justifiable. And where evil men are harming innocent and powerless people? What might our loving God require us to do in situations like that? Our Christian obligation to love our neighbour may not allow us just to stand back and watch innocent suffering. Instead perhaps we should get involved to prevent that suffering. In extreme circumstances it might even be justifiable to break the Sixth Commandment, “Do not kill,” if taking the life of an evil man is the absolutely the only way of saving innocent lives. Just occasionally the command to love our neighbours must take priority over loving our enemy when we must intervene to stop that enemy from murdering those neighbours.

In particular, the Bible gives to the government and to the state and to the legal system the task of protecting ordinary people from evil. Even if individuals are obliged to follow a code of pacifism, nations may be permitted to use violence to defend their people. For the purpose of protecting the individuals, the state has the right to use reasonable force to resist evil. Police should have the right to force to restrain the evil of murder and violent robbery. Armies should be authorised to use force to resist invasion from outside the state or community. The Bible teaches that human sin is so serious that sometimes a violent response, even a lethal response is necessary and appropriate. If there were no enforcers of justice, chaos would prevail. Restraining evil is the duty of political authorities. So war is always a tragedy. But in this fallen world, where all it needs for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, we need to recognise that ON RARE OCCASIONS, THE ALTERNATIVES TO WAR CAN BE WORSE THAN WAR.

So over the centuries Christians and other philosophers have been led to the concept of a “Just War.” These are a set of criteria, which help to 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. These ideas started many centuries ago with Augustine and Aquinas and are now recognised by most Christians. They draw on Christian principles of loving your neighbour, protecting the innocent and defenceless, and the duty of the state to defend its people from evil. But they also appeal to a generally held human sense of honour. Some acts in war have always been deemed dishonourable, whilst others have been deemed honourable. These “just war” traditions are now expressed in International Law in the Geneva and Hague conventions.

This morning I want us to consider the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and see what the principles of Just War theory have to say about the morality of the actions of Israel and of the Palestinians.

So what are the criteria for a “just war”? There are six things to think about when a nation is contemplating war.

Justice in going to 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 heart of the evil of terrorism is that only legitimate sovereign authorities have the right to wage war. Any use of force by local rulers, mercenaries or criminals is illegitimate. The use of force to restrain evil is the monopoly of the state. That is a necessary condition for a peaceful and civilized society. Freelance terrorism is a return to the barbarism of private wars. It is a direct attack on the justice, order and peace which political authority seeks to provide.
The nation state of Israel probably has the right to wage war to defend its people. Whether Palestinian terrorists have the equivalent right is more debatable.

2. War must be in a just cause

A just cause means defending the legitimate rights of the state. A just cause means an injustice already committed. That could mean some physical injury (like an invasion or an attack on the population), a trade embargo (an aggression against economic activity), or even an attack on a neighbour. Some people think it is legitimate to wage war as a defence against a possible future attack, some don’t.

Some would say that the Palestinians and the Israelis have just cause to attack each other. Many would say they do not - that they should just learn to live in peace as neighbours.

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.” Wars that are fought to take what doesn’t belong to us or expand our borders or for revenge are unjust wars. But war can be fought with good intentions.
“We make war that we may live in peace.” Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)
A just war is fought for the cause of justice and not for self-interest. War is intended to bring peace and the common good. But this can be complicated if the only way of securing peace with a neighbour who is attacking you is to invade and occupy his land and replace his government.

Justice and not self-interest. Many people find it hard to believe that either Israel or palestine are fighting for to bring about peace and the common good. If all the fighting is about is self-interest, that motivation does not justify war.

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.

Does the seriousness of the issues in Gaza justify the levels of destruction over the last three weeks? From the point of view of Just War theory, I think not.

5. The war should be a last resort,

All peaceful remedies must have been exhausted. If the goal of Palestinian mortar fire is to bring Israel to meaningful negotiations for a lasting peace, that might be permissible. If the goal of the Israeli air strikes and their land offensive is to bring Palestine to the negotiating table, that might be permissible. Sadly I am not convinced that either side believe that violence should only be the LAST resort.

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.

In the conflict between Israel and Palestine, nobody seriously believes that ongoing military action can achieve the successful outcome of lasting peace.

Justice in going to war. Six things to consider when a nation is contemplating war. Of these most people agree that from a moral point of view the third is the most important. Right intention – motivation “ the eradication of some injustice which has befallen fellow human beings and which can be eliminated in no other way.” (Christian ethicist David Brown) I am not persuaded that the intentions or motives of either Israel or Palestine are noble and pure.

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. Others think that possessing a just cause is a sufficient condition for pursuing whatever means are necessary to gain a victory or to punish an enemy. Others 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”. such ideas are simply wrong.

Just war tradition is not only concerned with whether it is legitimate to go to war. It has a seventh criterion which is entirely concerned with HOW war is fought. A nation fighting for a just cause must not fight unjustly. And even if the war begins without just cause, nations are obliged to use just methods.

Justice in waging war

7. The MODE of conducting the war should be morally legitimate:

(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, and that 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’) remain immune from attack. This distinction between combatants and civilians must always be maintained. 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. The history of modern warfare is characterized by “total warfare,” the expansion of targets beyond strictly military ones. But that is absolutely illegitimate 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 Israel and other places. Deliberately endangering civilians on either side by using them as a “human shield”. These methods of fighting are universally judged to be unacceptable!

This is why most of the world, not least the United Nations, the United States and the British Government have rightly been so critical of the actions of Israel in recent days. The greatest evil in Israel’s bombing campaign and in their ground offensive is that they have not discriminated adequately between combatants and civilians. Although they claim to be aiming at military targets in Gaza, at least two thirds of those who have been killed or injured have been civilians, including women and children, some of them even on the neutral ground of the United Nations compound in Gaza.

Israel is probably justified in attacking Hamas military targets in order to defend its own people from rocket attacks. Unfortunately HAMAS often locate their military operations in the middle of civilian populations, and that is immoral. But Israel’s indiscriminate attacks in the middle of civilian populations are completely indefensible in Just War theory.

You may hear military strategists try to justify attacks on such targets using a philosophical manoeuvre called “the doctrine of double effect.” That says that as long as there is a legitimate military target, the deaths of nearby civilians are not intended but accidental. Civilian casualties are a foreseeable but accidental side-effect of a legitimate attack. Many philosophers argue that the doctrine of double effect is acceptable as long as the direct effect is good and the only intended aim, the indirect affect is foreseen but unwanted, and the good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.

But even the doctrine of double effect offers no justification for all the rockets which HAMAS has been firing into Israeli civilian population centres over the last three years. Nor is there any possible justification for the Palestinian terrorists who set off suicide bombs in the middle of crowds of Israeli civilians. Rockets and suicide bombs are by their very nature indiscriminate in who they kill. That said, Israel’s response since Christmas has been even more indiscriminate. The Israeli military have the capability to be much more selective than they have been in the targets they choose to attack.

There is even more disturbing evidence that Israel may not even be trying to show discrimination. They may not even be trying to minimise attacks on civilians.

Two quotes passed on to me by a Baptist Minister in Essex whose reliability I trust are very worrying.
A religious edict released in 2006 by the influencial Yesha Rabbinical Council of Israel, states
“…according to Jewish law, during a time of battle and war, there is no such term as ‘innocents’ of the enemy. All of the discussions on Christian morality are weakening the spirit of the army and the nation ” …
Even more worrying, the Jerusalem Post of May 30th 2007 reports,
“former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written in a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza… he advocated carpet bombing the general area… regardless of the price in Palestinian life…. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. ”

Both Palestinians and Israelis have shown complete contempt for the most important rule in Just War theory about how war should be conducted – both have shown no respect for the rights of innocent civilians. Dead women and children are not just “collateral damage.” Killing innocent civilians is murder!

(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. The principles of proportionality and discrimination place limits on the violence of war.

Most people agree that Israel is justified in taking some kind and level of military action to prevent or reduce HAMAS attacks into Israel. But the whole world is agreed that Israel’s current response is disproportionate and indiscriminate.

Justice in going to war. Justice in waging war. The events of the past weeks in the Gaza Strip are deeply tragic. The political and military issues involved are much more complex than the media can present. Some of the moral questions are also very difficult, especially for us as Christians. This morning I have been trying to help each one of us to understand the issues a little better. As you watch the news reports, keep these principles of “just war” in mind and form your own judgments.

After Jesus was born Herod arranged for the slaughter of all the innocent infants who could be his rivals as King. And the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians continues in Gaza and Israel even today, Our God is a God of justice. He hears the cries of the innocent and trampled, the poor and the outcasts. And God cares for them all.

PSALM 10:14-18
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief; you consider it to take it in hand.
The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless.
Break the arm of the wicked and evil man;
call him to account for his wickedness that would not be found out.
The LORD is King for ever and ever; the nations will perish from his land.
You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted;
you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
defending the fatherless and the oppressed,
in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more.

POSTSCRIPT:

This sermon generated probably more discussion than any other I have preached. In particular, some have suggested that since HAMAS terrorists disregard the “rules of war” by targeting innocent civilians, Israel is entitled to use the same tactics in return. Comparisons have been made with the carpet bombing of Dresden, or the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which some seek to justify as “last resort” tactics without which the Second World War would have ended very differently.

Just War theory rebukes the notion that “all is fair in love and war.” Killing innocent civilians is not “collateral damage” even if the enemy have killed your innocent civilians – it is still murder. If reports are correct that around two thirds of the Palestinians killed are non-combatants, women and children, then Israel has not shown the discrimination of which its technology would be capable.

You may have read of the tragic deaths of three daughters and one niece of Palestinian obstetrician Dr Izeldeen Abuelaish under Israeli shell fire. Dr Abuelaish was known and loved by Israelis.
The BBC website quotes the doctor’s reaction.
“I had just left the room, carrying my youngest son on my shoulders. Then a shell came through the wall.
“I rushed back to find their dead bodies - or rather parts of their bodies - strewn all over the room. One was still sitting in a chair but she had no legs.”
“Tell me why did they have to die? Who gave the order to fire on my house?”
In a voice cracked with emotion, he added: “You know me, Lucy. You have been to my house, my hospital; you have seen my Israeli patients.
“I have tried so hard to bring people on both sides together and just look what I get in return.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838465.stm

First preached in March 2003 at the beginning of the war with Iraq

Before we can make comments on the conflict between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza, or on the Iraq war, we must answer an even more basic question. Is war EVER right? Some Christians say no. The last Pope maintained that violence will never be the answer to the world’s problems. Can war EVER be right?

What does God think? Is God is for war or against war? If you think God is for war then think about Jesus’ words: “Blessed are the peacemakers for theirs is the kingdom of God.” If, on the other hand, you think that God is against war, then what about all those parts of the Old Testament where God commanded war and went before his people in war.

In general God is against war. But God is also against sin. The problem is we cannot get rid of either of them. We must live in a fallen world where both are inevitable.

But what about the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Listen to these words of the Lord Jesus Christ. “Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the sons of God.”
“You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
“You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

And how about ROMANS 12: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath.
Read what happened in Matthew 26:49-52, when the apostle Peter attacked those who came to arrest Jesus and Jesus commanded him to put his sword away. “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” In the Second Century Tertullian wrote, “In disarming Peter, Jesus disarmed all soldiers. … We cannot kill anybody for whom Christ died.” Our Baptist ancestors the Anabaptists, together with the Brethren and more recently the Mennonites and the Quakers, have strongly defended the cause of pacifism and non-violence. Pacifists would say, “We believe all retaliation does is escalate the violence. Someone has to have the courage to say that the violence stops here.” This is the basic pacifist argument against the use of force. In their understanding the use of force is the direct opposite to loving your neighbor as you love yourself. Love and war are never compatible.

But whilst some Christians of all traditions have been pacifists, the majority of Christians have not. The picture may be just a bit more complicated than at first sight.
In this sin-spoiled world, it is just possible that there could be some situations when violence, though undesirable, becomes necessary.

What about SELF DEFENCE - a “Kill or be killed” situation?

Jesus allowed his disciples to carry swords. At one point Jesus even said, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Lk 2:36). And those swords were for self-defence. Consider a situation where you are standing beside a steep drop and somebody is rushing towards you wanting to push you off. If you step to one side they will fall, if you don’t step aside and they push you will certainly fall. Are you morally obliged to let them push you to your death? Or are you allowed, with great regrets, to step to one side so they fall to their death. Self-defence is a legitimate defence in law courts throughout the world.

But Christians are obliged to “love their enemies” and commanded “Do not resist an evil person” and “turn the other cheek.” So some Christian pacifists believe that even in that extreme circumstance where an attacker could take your life, self-defence is not an option. They believe that Christian pacifism requires us to follow in Christ’s steps and endure suffering rather than ever cause suffering to others.

But what if the attack is not directed against me, but against somebody else, perhaps somebody I love but equally somebody I don’t even know. It is one thing to choose not to defend myself. It is another thing to refuse to help somebody else whose suffering I could prevent if I were to act.

What about defending the innocent and the powerless?

As an example of loving your neighbour, Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan. But what if the Good Samaritan had come along while the robbers were beating up the man? Would he have been expected to stand back until the robbery had finished so he could then step in to pick up the pieces. Or would the Good Samaritan have waded in to stop the beating, even if that had involved violence? Which response would have been “loving your neighbour”? To stand by and watch innocent suffering, or get involved to prevent that suffering?

A Christian witnesses an innocent child being abused. Should the Christian who is committed to non-violence and to peacemaking stand by and watch the suffering? Or should the Christian take action, even if that has to be violent action, to rescue the child? Would I as a loving parent resort to violence if that was absolutely the only way to stop my children from coming to serious harm. Of course I would. With great sadness, but I would.

We live a world heading for judgement because of sin. In this fallen world, ethics can sometimes be very messy. It may not always be possible to avoid doing wrong. Sometimes it may come down to having to choose between two different kinds of evil. A man driving his seriously ill wife to hospital may choose to break the speed limits in order to get her to medical help as quickly as possible. The command to “love our neighbour” may often lead us to difficult choices about which neighbour to love and which to leave unloved in a world where resources to help are often dwarfed by the scale of human suffering. And just occasionally the command to love our neighbours must take priority over loving our enemy when that enemy is intent on murdering those neighbours.
Should this “loving my neighbour” have limits? In the Sixth of the Ten Commandments the Bible says, “Do not kill. Do not commit murder.” Could it ever be right to break that commandment? There many examples in the Old Testament where God actually did command his chosen people to kill others (think of David and Goliath, or of the many offences where God commanded the death penalty).

It is not difficult to conceive of situations where, undesirable as it would be, it could be judged to be morally the “right” action to kill another person. A maniac has his finger on the trigger of a weapon of mass destruction which would kill thousands. A suicide bomber is counting down to blowing himself and his hostages to pieces. If the only way to stop the inevitable death of innocent people is for a police marksman to execute the intending murderer, that could be the right action to take. In extreme circumstances like these, to “love the enemy” and “not resist an evil person” by refusing to act against that one evil enemy would be failing to show love for the many innocent people who would die.

Then there is also another reason why we need to think more deeply about Jesus’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Because the Sermon on the Mount was directed at individual disciples, but when it comes to world events, there is an important distinction between the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the rights and responsibilities of nations, communities, and states.

Even if individuals are obliged to follow a code of pacifism, this doesn’t necessarily mean that nations are not permitted to use violence to defend their people. In fact the reverse holds. Individuals should be free to take a stance of non-violence precisely because it is the right and duty of the community and the government and the state to protect them from evil. So many Christians argue that for the purpose of protecting the individuals, the state has the right to use reasonable force to resist evil. Police should have the right to force to restrain the evil of murder and violent robbery. Armies should be authorised to use force to resist invasion from outside the state or community.

So what about civil authorities using force to uphold justice and restrain evil?

This right and responsibility is very clear in ROMANS 13:1-6. 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. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
The Bible clearly implies here that human sin is so serious that sometimes a violent response, even a lethal response is absolutely necessary and appropriate. “Rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil, and the magistrate does not bare the sword in vain.”
There may be times when use of the sword becomes necessary. Firstly, in defending others. There comes a time when concern for the innocent and protection of those that cannot protect themselves demand the option of a violent response. Secondly, for deterrence. If an enemy knows that he is going to pay a very high price if he does something wrong, he will be more hesitant to do it. When good people do not have arms, you know that evil people will be armed every single time!

There’s a tension here between the ethics the Sermon on the Mount commands for individuals and the rights and responsibilities God gives to rulers and magistrates and the state protecting its people and punishing evil in Romans 13. New Testament ethics for individuals are different to the responsibilities of national leaders. Like I said, we live in a fallen world. Ethics can be a messy business.

We do find the same powers to use violence when necessary given to human authorities in 1 PETER 2:13
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.

The Bible recognizes that if there were no enforcers of justice, chaos would prevail. But note that it is the community or the state which should be the vehicle of retributive justice, and never the individual. With all those offences in the Old Testament which are to carry the death penalty, it was the whole community who were commanded to carry out the punishment by stoning. All Israel stoned the guilty, all Israel bore part of the responsibility, so it was no individual’s responsibility as such.

Romans 12:18 commands, “as much as is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” We are instructed to seek peace in every situation, and we are to be sure that if peace is taken away, it is not because of an action for which we are responsible. But Paul recognizes that circumstances in life can arise when we cannot live in peace, for whatever reason. Romans 13 tells us that, at that point, a response of force by the ruling authorities may be allowed, and even required.

The classic Christian pacifists did not deny this was the duty of political authorities. For classic pacifists political authorities are not only permitted by God to wield the sword for the sake of justice, order and peace, but are required to do so by God Himself, whether or not they personally acknowledge God as the ultimate source of their authority to do so.
Our Baptist forefathers in the 16th century the Anabaptists believed it would be wrong for Christians to become governors or rulers or magistrates. This was precisely because Christian rulers or magistrates would sometimes be obliged to use or order violence in the course of their duties. The Anabaptists recognised very clearly that public authorities had a mandate from God to do what they felt they as Christians were prohibited from doing:
One of their confessions of faith declares this. “The sword punishes and kills people and protects and defends the good. In the law the sword is established to punish and to kill the wicked, and secular authorities are established to use it.”

Through history classic Christian pacifists never questioned whether or not public authorities were authorized to punish evildoers by death and by waging war if necessary. The issue for them was whether Christians may legitimately hold a political office. They fully accepted that political authority could legitimately employ even lethal force when necessary.

So whilst many Christians have been pacifists, the majority have not. They have recognised the right to self-defence, and the obligation to love our neighbour by protecting the innocent and the defenceless. They have recognised the duty of the state authorities to restrain evil and punish evildoers, both within the state and threatening the state from outside.

And how does all this apply to war? Is war always wrong? The majority of Christians have always believed, and I believe the Bible teaches, that WAR IS ALWAYS A TRAGEDY. But in this fallen world, where all it needs for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, we need to recognise that ON RARE OCCASIONS, THE ALTERNATIVES TO WAR CAN BE WORSE THAN WAR.

Somebody has said, “The failure to fight a just war may be a failure to love. “We … fight just wars because they’re acts of charity. Fighting just wars … is something Christians ought to do out of love for God and neighbor …” A just war is an act of love because it brings justice, it restrains evildoers, and promotes the peace and well-being of the community. Ridding the world of evil — by legitimate means — is a good and loving act.”

Thomas Aquinas regarded war as an expression of charity, the love of God and neighbor. He applauded those who wielded the sword in protection of the community. John Calvin called the soldier an “agent of God’s love,” and he called soldiering justly a “God-like act.” Because “restraining evil out of love for neighbor” is an imitation of God’s restraining evil out of love for His creatures.

A world where Christians refused to fight wars wouldn’t be more peaceful, and it wouldn’t be a more just world. It would be a world where evil would be unchecked by justice and where the strong would be free to prey on the weak. Fighting just wars when necessary takes sin seriously and so provides — strange as it may sound — a loving response.

C.S.Lewis encouraged soldiers to take pride in fighting the forces of evil. But he warned against a love of killing. “We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it,” “Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves — to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good.” Loving our enemies means “Wishing his good.” It does not mean “feeling fond of him or saying he is nice when he is not.”

So going to war MAY in some circumstances be justifiable. But what are those circumstances, and do they apply at this time? I have used the phrase, “a just war.” Many politicians have used that phrase recently – and many have abused it. To find out what Christians mean by a “just war”, a war fought for justifiable reasons and using fair and just methods, you’ll have to listen to the next sermon!

NEW YEAR MESSAGE FOR 2009

In the last six months the value of houses has dropped by on sixth. The value of shares has dropped by almost one third. High Street stores like Woolworths, MFI and Zavvi have gone out of business. Banks have been taken over or nationalised. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs and it is said hundreds of thousands more will do so. We now know the meaning of words like Credit Crunch, downturn and recession. It was not difficult to identify a motto text for 2008.

MATTHEW 6:19 “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.

Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount teaches us about the importance of getting our priorities right. The first and most important thing is that

We must live out in our own lives the teaching of Jesus.
Martin Luther astutely observed, “There are three conversions necessary: the conversion of the heart, mind and the purse.” Of these three, it is often the case that our generation finds the conversion of the purse the most difficult.

MATTHEW 6:19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

There’s a true story that comes from the sinking of the Titanic. A frightened woman found her place in a lifeboat that was about to be lowered into the raging North Atlantic. She suddenly thought of something she needed, so she asked permission to return to her stateroom before they cast off. She was granted three minutes or they would have to leave without her.
She ran across the deck that was already slanted at a dangerous angle. She raced through the gambling room with all the money that had rolled to one side, ankle deep. She came to her stateroom and quickly pushed aside her diamond rings and expensive bracelets and necklaces as she reached to the shelf above her bed and grabbed three small oranges. She quickly found her way back to the lifeboat and got in.
Now that seems incredible because thirty minutes earlier she would not have chosen a crate of oranges over even the smallest diamond. But death had boarded the Titanic. One blast of its awful breath had transformed all values. Instantaneously, priceless things had become worthless. Worthless things had become priceless. And in that moment she preferred three small oranges to a crate of diamonds.

What are OUR priorities? What is really important to us?

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.

Our world desperately needs to hear this truth that spiritual things are more important than material things!
The story is told about some Christians who were traveling in the Middle East. They heard about a wise, devout, beloved, old believer, so they went out of their way to visit him. When they finally found him, they discovered that he was living in a simple hut. All he had inside was a rough cot, a chair, a table, and a battered stove for heating and cooking. The visitors were shocked to see how few possessions the man had, and one of them blurted out, “Well, where is your furniture?” The aged saint replied by gently asking, :Where is yours?” The visitor, sputtering a little, responded, “Why, at home, of course. I don’t carry it with me, I’m traveling.” “So am I,” the godly Christian replied. “So am I.”

21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Billionaire Paul Getty died – “how much did he leave?” “Everything!”
Where are your treasures? When you die will you be going TO your treasures? Or leaving them behind?

Archbishop of Canterbury’s New Year Message. “Our hearts will be in a very bad way if they are focused only on the state of our finances. They’ll be healthy if they’re capable of turning outwards - looking at the real treasure that is our fellow human beings,”.

22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
To have “good” eyes is to be single minded – focussed on God and to be generous. To have bad eyes is to be ungenerous or selfish or greedy.

24 “No-one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Money is a good servant but a poor master. Someday we will realise that the bars that shut many people out of the kingdom of heaven are made of silver and gold.

You cannot serve God and Mammon. Mammon = false God of Money but also broader – all earthly possessions.

We must be prepared to demonstrate that our faith is in God, not in the false gods of this age, the false gods of Money, Entertainment and Shopping.
The story is told of an occasion where St. Thomas Aquinas was walking with a prelate through one of the grand cathedrals of his day. Referring to a coffer filled with precious coins, the prelate remarked, “Behold, Master Thomas, the church can no longer say, as St. Peter, ‘Silver and gold have I none!’” St. Thomas was apparently quick with his retort, “Alas, neither can we say what follows, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk.’”

We must take care of the poor and needy

It doesn’t matter the reasons why people are poor. It doesn’t matter if it is their fault or somebody else’s fault or nobody’s fault at all. God causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous equally. God cares for everybody and we must care for everybody.

There will be people in need because of the economic crisis – even in Brentwood! We must be prepared to help them.
Those who have lost their jobs – and there are those in the church today who are in that situation.
Those who have lost their savings.
Those who find that their pensions are not worth what they were or should be.

WE must take care of those in need.
James 2:15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?

We have the communion fund – we must use it to help those in need. Our friends Richard and Heather Cameron were missionaries in Nepal. Richard was headteacher of the school at Pokara where our BMS missionary Sarah Prior now works. I once asked Richard what proportion of the budget of the church in Pokara was set aside for what we would call the Communion Fund. He replied, “Something over 100%”. The church there used its regular offerings to pay its bills. But then when people were in need they would have special offerings specifically to help those poor people. And over a year the special offerings to help the poor always added up to more than the regular offerings to cover all the running expenses of the church.

We must Make sure our treasures are in heaven We must help the poor and needy.

And we must take this opportunity to

witness to the world about the importance of treasures in heaven.

It was the 1987 film “Wall Street” in which Michael Douglas’s character Gordon Gekko gave the slogan which so much of the world economy has been built on:

Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind. Greed is good.
That’s the attitude which says “Enough is never enough” which has landed the world in the economic mess it is in now!

FreePort Designer Village in Braintree once used this advertising slogan. “Ours is a shallow meaningless consumer society where we are defined by our possessions. Enjoy!”

People nowadays seem to be “born to shop”. Shopping is now officially Britain’s number one most popular recreational activity. More people spend their leisure time in shopping Malls or garden centres or DIY superstores than doing anything else.
In today’s shopping mall culture our neighbours are much more likely to be worshipping in the Temples of Lakeside and Bluewater than in Christian Churches.

New phrase (whether coined by advertising genius or a comedian I don’t know)- “Retail therapy”
The idea that we NEED to shop, that shopping is GOOD and HEALTHY for us, the idea that when we are sad or depressed, the best thing we can do is go out and spend, spend, spend! It really worries me that our Prime Minister has suggested that what people should be doing is spending our way out of this recession!!

The Times columnist, Bernard Levin (who is not a Christian) once wrote: “Countries like ours are full of people who have all the material comforts they desire, and yet lead lives of desperation, understanding nothing but the fact that there is a hole inside them and that however much food and drink they put into it, however many motor cars and television sets they stuff it with…it aches.” In other words, happiness will not arrive in a M&S carrier bag, in a BMW or in a pair of Reebok trainers. We cannot fill the hole in our souls by putting a hole in our purses and wallets.

This is the message the church should be proclaiming in these troubled times. The Credit Crunch and the recession will be causing people more than ever to reconsider their priorities. People are realising that greed is NOT good – that the most important things in life are things money can’t buy! There is so much more to life than Money and Entertainment and Shopping. Now is the time for the church to be more bold than ever to proclaim the message!
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.