When logical actions are culturally defined and appear absurdly illogical

I was recently given a copy of The Briefing which contained an article on the Islamic protests against a film, made in the USA, which depicted Muhammad in a less than complimentary light. The article, 'Marching for Allah', considers questions related to why a group of Muslims in Australia would bother to march and protest against a film created in the USA. What were they hoping to achieve and why did this seem like a logical response to the issue?

The article goes on to outline three types of cultural rationalities: guilt-based rationality; shame-based rationality and fear-based rationality. The Western, Judeo-Christian world leans strongly toward guilt-based rationality which "relies on an internal conviction of right and wrong". The article comments, "western people often think that the right thing to do is the righteous thing, even if it hurts other people. Western people often value personal integrity, sometimes at the expense of relationships. We value truth, honesty, and justice".

By contrast, much of the Middle East and Asia leans toward shame-based rationality.The article states:

In a shame-based culture, people often value relationship and the preservation of community over a personal sense of righteousness. In other words, people from these cultures often think that the right thing to do is the thing that honours the other people in their life, particularly family, but also nation, ancestors and God. People value and rationalize in terms of loyalty, community and friendship, and right action is about satisfaction, rather than justification.

When we consider these differing approaches to rationality, we come to understand something of why these protests took place. Those marching were not concerned with censorship and stopping the film. Instead, the protest was about sending a message to the world that this sort of depiction of Muhammad was not alright with them. As the articles comments:

Muslims care about the way you think about Allah, even if you aren't Muslim. They care about the way you think about Muhammad, who had been publicly shamed. Many of them would prefer to defend the honour of Muhammad by any means rather than sit idly by while he is profaned. And so the protest was what rational action demanded of them.

Understanding differing rationalities may help us comprehend the underlying reasons for the recent Islamic protests, however, it should also have the most profound impact upon how we engage with Muslims.

On one level, this may mean framing the gospel less in terms of guilt and personal righteousness and more in terms of shame and exaltation. Certainly the Bible itself does this on occasion (e.g. Ps 25:3; Isa 53:3; Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:6). However, this doesn't mean we need to throw out the penal substitutionary view of atonement when discussing scripture with Islamic friends. Instead, it means carefully explaining "the righteousness of God wasn't about God’s own righteousness: God’s intrinsic honour and glory. It was about a righteousness imputed to us; our sin condemned us, but in Christ we stand justified because Christ has dealt with our guilt".

Our culture, in many ways, determines the way we will do theology. However, the reverse of this is also true: "Much of our culture depends on the way we think about God". As the article comments:

In Islamic theology Allah is unknowable. He is utterly transcendent, and it is impossible to penetrate the inside of God to enter into any kind of relationship. The best we can do is know his will for our lives, and then honour him by doing it. It isn’t a religion of relationship, it’s about submission—which is what the word Muslim means. This idea of God shapes every area of Islamic culture. The task of the government is to ensure that Allah is honoured by society and that society conforms to his will. Because of this, Islamic culture will always tend towards social uniformity and political totalitarianism. The concept of dhimmitude also makes complete sense, because non-Muslims also must be seen to honour Allah, even if they don’t believe. Life becomes about conformity and obedience. The good life is one where Allah is seen to be honoured.

But consider the difference that Christian theology makes—the Christian church in its better, more self-consistent moments. Consider that the Father of Jesus Christ would humble his own son; that Christ would become man so that we might penetrate the unknowable God and discover the inner nature of the Father. We think about reality differently because of this. All of a sudden, true power is power to serve others self-sacrificially, just as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve. True being is in relationship: existence for another, just as Christ loved us and gave himself for us. Consider how much changes when you see God not through the lens of glory, but through a theology of the cross—that God would be humbled and shamed, cast into the despair of a grieving parent. What might it mean for our dialogue with Islam that God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ doesn't always have to be seen to win?

When we respond to and engage with Muslims, the way we respond is important. The message of Islam is triumphalist, couched in the language of victory. Allah will suffer no rivals and, above all else, he must be honoured. Whilst it is right for Christians to speak up and respond to Islam, we are not called to shout louder nor to make sure our God is seen to win. It is not incumbent on us to make everybody honour Christ with the dignity due to him.

Whilst a time will come when every knee will bow and confess Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father (Rom 4:11), this is something God will do himself and does not require from us. When speaking with Muslim friends, perhaps we must acknowledge there is nothing rational we can say, and then should say it nonetheless (1 Cor. 1:18). "Allah may have his day, while Christians continue to meekly proclaim a nonsensical Trinitarian God, a dishonoured and crucified saviour, while we love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us... We aren't going to be able to boisterously commend a crucified God".

Allah’s day is Friday. But it is only one day, and you can’t tell on Friday who wins. Allah may be honoured by all and Christ may be in the grave, but the true God doesn't always need to appear victorious. The victor will only be known three days later. We live on that Saturday in between. We do not yet see all things subjected to Jesus. Rather we worship, proclaim and honour a crucified God, who bore our sin—and shame—in his own body on the tree. He did it to show us the inner heart of the God who suffers with us. He did it to win forgiveness for the meek and humble, and for those that hunger and thirst for a righteousness that they didn’t see in the placards of the protest march. If it is a message that is foolish, then so be it: we will be foolish. For vindication we must wait. But we wait with altered rationality, with a hidden wisdom. We wait with patience and eager expectation, for Sunday.

Clearly, such a view impacts in the most direct way on how we engage with our Muslim friends. However, this should also cause us to consider which, if any, 'protests' are truly worthwhile. Our God and saviour has already suffered the ignominy of the cross. In his humiliation, God shamed himself in the most public and terrible way. When he is derided and mocked today, what is that compared to the shame of the cross? Moreover, though he in no way appeared victorious on the Friday, it is to the resurrection that the apostles continuously point. 

Where people seek to shame our God and saviour, are they really going to do any worse than the cross? When our Lord appears to be shamed, must we defend his honour? His dignity, by his own volition, was given up in the most public way on the cross. The Lord will ultimately triumph and everyone will give the honour due to him. However, this is something he will do and for which he needs no help. Why concern ourselves protesting against trifling attempts to shame Christ when he already shamed himself in the most humiliating of ways? Our calling is not to defend God's honour, he will see to that himself, but to commend a God who so loves the world that he shamed himself to bring people into a relationship with Him.

Media silence lifted now Gosnell found guilty of murder

Now that Dr Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of murder, the media silence surrounding this case has been lifted and the story is beginning to make headlines. Cranmer comments that this case once again raises serious questions about when life actually begins, noting that Pennsylvania and the UK are exceptional. He states "not everywhere has a 24-week limit... Across Europe, the upper limits are: France 12, Germany 12, Italy 12, Belgium 12, Bulgaria 12, Denmark 12, Czech Republic 12, Greece 12, Hungary 12, Luxembourg 12, the Netherlands 13, Poland 12, Slovakia 12 and Sweden, the most ‘liberal’, 18."

Cranmer is quite right to raise these issues. He is equally correct in highlighting the moral inconsistency, pointed out by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, that asserts "the pregnant woman who smokes or drinks heavily is widely regarded as guilty of infringing the rights of her unborn child; yet at the same time, with no apparent sense of incongruity, there is discussion of the possibility of the liberty of the pregnant woman herself to perform the actions that will terminate a pregnancy." Indeed, he is most likely correct that "the nation cries out for a latter-day Shaftsbury or Wilberforce in Parliament who will bang on about this barbarism ad nauseam, day after day, week after week, until something is done about it."

I was struck by one particular comment in the Guardian. Having stated that both sides of the abortion debate "endorsed the verdict", the paper offered statements from a pro-life organisation and a pro-choice group. Unsurprisingly, the pro-life spokesman endorsed the verdict and claimed the result "helped more people realize what abortion is really about" and went on to state that he hoped this would lead to further legislation reducing the number of terminations. So far, so expected.

However, the paper claimed "supporters of legalized abortion said the case foreshadows what poor, desperate young women could face if abortion is driven underground with more restrictive laws". Whilst that comment may be unsurprising, the argument is woeful. Specifically, the argument fails because this did happen without "restrictive laws". Indeed, this happened in a place with higher legal limits and more relaxed attitudes to abortion than much of Europe, and did so without driving anybody underground but to a known, community abortion clinic. This is not foreshadowing what could happen under tighter legislation but is the reality of what has happened under current legislation. Indeed, such was the work of Dr Gosnell that even the comparatively "liberal" Pennsylvanian abortion laws were flouted.

More interesting still, president of Naral pro-choice America  - Ilyse G Hogue - stated "Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty and will get what he deserves. Now, let's make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care". This doesn't sound like somebody who has "endorsed the verdict". Indeed, her inference appears to be that Gosnell's main crime - though, nevertheless, still a hideous one - was the poor care for the women at his clinic. However, the verdict found him guilty of the first-degree murder of three children and was not primarily a result of his lack of care for the women in his clinic. Whilst Gosnell's lack of care for the women at his clinic was heinous indeed, it is not the primary atrocity. Ilyse Hogue passes no comment on the verdict of murder and sees vindication for these women as allowing further such abhorrent practices to occur, so long as it happens in a clean and safe environment.

Kermit Gosnell has now been found guilty of three charges of first-degree murder, infanticide, racketeering and more than 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania's abortion laws by performing third-term abortions or failing to counsel women 24 hours in advance. He showed no regard for the life of the children he terminated, the women who came to his clinic, the employees working for him nor the authorities to whom he was subject. 

Whatever side of the abortion debate one falls, these particular crimes cannot be seen as anything other than horrific. Nor can they be couched in terms of what happens under restrictive legislation. Indeed, these crimes occurred in violation of existing legislation that, in comparison to much of Europe, is "liberal". It may be a sign of what happens when legislation is poorly implemented, it may be what happens when legislation is not enforced or it may be what happens when legislation is too permissive. To be sure, there are many possible reasons and opposing sides of the debate are likely to cling to those that reinforce their predispositions. However, what this case most certainly does not show is this is what happens when restrictive laws are enforced.

Why should we bother with prayer?

If prayer is merely 'talking to God', what are we hoping to communicate to Him that he doesn't already know? If God has a pre-ordained plan, what are we hoping to achieve when we ask him to divert from his deterministic designs? Are we hoping to change the mind of, or communicate something unknown to, a sovereign, almighty God?

In the first instance, we should not overlook the fact that prayer is commanded in scripture. 1 Thessalonians 5:17, amongst other verses, make clear that God commands us to pray to Him. So, on one level, we should bother with prayer because God commands us to pray. However, whilst this asserts why we ought to pray it doesn't explain why God wants us to pray in the first place. The real question revolves around why a sovereign God commands us to pray when he already knows our thoughts and is in control of everything.

We can glean from Daniel 4:35, Proverbs 19:21, Ephesians 1:11, et al that God is sovereign and in control of everything. Rather than causing us to ask why we should bother with prayer these verses should give us real encouragement to engage in prayer. For, if God is not sovereign, what point is there in asking him to do anything when it is likely beyond his power? It is specifically because God has the power to change events and human hearts that prayer is of any value at all. 

Nevertheless, although the sovereignty of God should cause us to see value in prayer, we are still led back to the original question. If God is in control and works everything ‘according to the counsel of his good will’, why bother bringing anything to Him when he will do as he wills anyway? What exactly are we hoping to achieve through prayer?

In 2 Corinthians 1:10-11, Paul speaks about prayer in a rather unexpected way. He appears to suggest that God's divine will is specifically fulfilled as a result of 'the prayers of many'. Thomas Aquinas picks up this theme in Summa Theologiæ and argues "we do not pray in order to change the decree of divine providence, rather we pray in order to acquire by petitionary prayer what God has determined would be obtained by our prayers". In short, when we pray it is because God, in his sovereignty, has moved us to pray. When our prayers are granted it is because God willed us to pray and, through our prayers, he willed to work.

Although God can, and will, bring about his purposes by his own strength, he has stated the way in which he wants those purposes to to be worked out. God wants to work out his purposes through the prayers of his people. Indeed, this is part of God's rich grace toward us. He can save whomever he wants, heal whomever he wants and bring about whatever events he wants without interference yet God, in his grace, actively includes us in his plan by making prayer the means by which he brings about his divine purposes. When we pray, we are actively - rather than passively or deterministically - participating in God's divine plan. God wills us to pray and, through our prayers, he is pleased to work. 

Our prayers are the means by which God works out his plans and purposes. We are active participants in God's plan when we pray. By his grace, we are included and associated in the working out of his sovereign and perfect plan - we play an active part in all that God decrees is good - when we pray.

This same truth is why we should engage in evangelism and mission. Yes, the Lord commanded us to do it; and yes, God is sovereign and can save whomever he wills without our help. However, God has determined the way he wants to draw people to himself and enlarge his kingdom. He calls us to evangelise and engage in mission because he wants to graciously include us in his plan of salvation. We are associated with the ultimate good of bringing people to a knowledge of Christ, to a position where they can glorify God and enjoy him forever, when we engage in evangelism and the Lord chooses to work through us.

When a child helps their parent bake a cake, the work may take longer and there may be more mess in the kitchen, but there can be no doubt the child most definitely helped. Though it would be easier to do it themselves, in allowing the child to help, a parent gives a sense of ownership of the task to the child and allows them to learn something otherwise unattainable. Similarly, although the Lord could do it faster and with less mess without our help, just like the child in the kitchen, he graciously allows us to be part of his perfect plan. We can lay claim to active involvement in God's plan because we, albeit in our small and clumsy way, most definitely helped. We are given an opportunity to grow in ways that would be utterly unattainable were God to enact his plan without reference to us. 

Prayer and evangelism are God's most gracious ways of actively including us in his plan and are a significant source of growth in the Christian life. Our question should not be 'why should I bother?' but rather 'why would I not?'.

Must I have a heart for particular people before I can reach them?

It is a common enough objection to engaging in evangelistic outreach - "I don't really have a heart for that" or "that's not where my heart is". So, it seems a valid question to ask whether we need a specific "heart" for particular peoples and geographical areas before we can engage in evangelism?

In short, scripture speaks against this idea of requiring a heart for the work. Notably, Jesus did not caveat the great commission so it reads "go and make disciples of all those for whom you have a heart... those you particularly like". Rather, it reads "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19, ESV)". Significantly, Jesus continues and says "teaching them [those of whom you make disciples] to observe all that I have commanded you (Mt 28:20a, ESV)", which presumably includes this bit about going into all the world and making disciples. There was certainly no sense from Jesus that the apostles had to figure out for whom they had a real heart and to focus their attentions solely on them - they were told quite directly to reach all nations.

The book of Jonah frames this issue in an alternative way. The Lord commanded this prophet to go to Nineveh and, we can safely conclude from his response, Jonah did not have a heart for these people (Jon 1:3-16). In fact, Jonah so despised the people of Nineveh that he was prepared to die rather than reach them with God's message (Jon 1:12). Having been humbled by God and eventually taken the Lord's message of judgement to this city, Jonah is apoplectic when God relents at seeing Nineveh turn from its sin (Jon 4:1-3). Far worse than not "having a heart" for these people, Jonah wanted the city of Nineveh to be destroyed. He specifically did not want to take the Lord's message to them because he knew God was gracious and would relent from disaster were the people to repent. It is interesting that God saved a whole city despite the messenger holding the people in contempt and actively hoping for their destruction. It appears God can, and will, work even when our hearts are not really in it.

So, do we need a specific "heart" for peoples and areas before we can engage in reaching them? Scripture doesn't make this a caveat for evangelism. In fact, the Bible suggests we should reach whomever we have the ability to reach. Paul was clear about where his focus lay. He says:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings (1 Cor 9:19-23).

Therefore, where opportunities are granted to us to share the gospel the question of whether we have "a heart" for the area or people should be moot. We should all have a heart for the lost, whomever they may be, because the Lord has a heart for them (2 Pet 3:9), just as he had a heart for us when he died to save us (Rom 5:8). 

Rowan Atkinson to face enquiry for Comic Relief sketch

The Guardian has reported Rowan Atkinson's Comic Relief sketch, which prompted more than 2,200 complaints to the BBC, is to be investigated by media regulator Ofcom. 

A quarter of the complaints lodged against the sketch were understood to be about religious offence prompting the BBC to apologise and remove it from iPlayer. Ofcom is understood to be investigating the programme on grounds of offensive language and generally accepted standards.

Frankly, the language hardly feels offensive. Far worse language is used in plenty of other pre-watershed programming where there are no complaints to be found. As for meeting 'generally accepted standards', one struggles to grasp of which standards the sketch fell foul. All in all, it was a fairly tame performance.

The key areas of consternation appear to be the statement that prayer "doesn't work", a supposed comparison of One Direction to the Disciples and a faux attempt to deal with a particularly crass interpretation of "Love your neighbour".

Let's be clear, this was a parody of a 'trendy vicar' type who had become Archbishop of Canterbury. One only needs to look at the Anglican Church to see that such persons exist and, with the departure of Rowan Williams, it was perfectly legitimate to imagine that one such person could take his place. 

As for the statements that seemed to offend, there are plenty of communicants and clergy in the Anglican Church who do believe that prayer "doesn't work". Whilst there may be many who disagree, perhaps even a majority, this doesn't take away the fact that such views do exist. To get upset that a fictional Archbishop articulated a genuine belief of many Anglican clergy seems somewhat foolish. More to the point, the joke only works because this is something that most people think an Archbishop wouldn't say (though might possibly believe). That seems like a perfectly legitimate observation to me.

The supposed comparison of One Direction to the Disciples is really no comparison at all. The joke is the parody, sadly all too often the case in reality (not only in Anglican Churches at that), of the vicar/minister desperately trying to appear 'relevant', 'in touch' and 'up to date' when they themselves are no such thing. The joke is that this fictional Archbishop is not up to date and therefore tries to shoehorn pop culture references into theological statements that simply do not stand. More to the point, the comment neither suggested that One Direction were in any way like the Disciples nor was it actually drawing a comparison. The "Archbishop" was making a reference to appear 'in touch' which simply did not follow and thus he was the butt of the joke. 

Similarly, the "love your neighbour" comment was a legitimate parody of the balancing act between usurping some language in a bid to appear 'trendy' whilst shunning other language as too vulgar. Again, it is an observable phenomenon in churches and therefore a perfectly legitimate target of observational humour.

In reality, Christians aren't doing themselves any favours in complaining about this sort of thing and it is always worth asking what exactly we are hoping to achieve. Of course, if you were genuinely offended then, as a license fee payer, you are entitled to voice that opinion to the BBC. However, aside from the apparent lack of anything which could be reasonably considered offensive, surely there are more important battles to be fought than bleating about an innocuous parody of a frankly all too observable type of clergyman?

Media silence on Gosnell makes a mockery of robust journalism and has knock-on effects for free speech

Although not widely reported in the mainstream media, the Gosnell infanticide case has been circulating in the blogosphere. If you are unaware of the details, there is a brief outline here.

The media silence has also been documented in the blogosphere. For example, see here, here and here. In the UK, the story was carried by the Daily Mail and Telegraph, limited to a single article by the BBC (which doesn't appear to have been linked to the homepage and only comes up with an active search on 'Gosnell') and ignored altogether by the Independent, Guardian and Times. As to how Christians ought to respond to this, Andy's Study has made some helpful suggestions.

The media silence on this makes a mockery of robust journalism. It is staggering that papers such as the Guardian will run stories like this without running stories like this. Such reporting hardly supports their advertisement which runs the tagline "the whole picture".

Worse still is the knock-on effect such journalism has on free speech. Whilst we pay lip service to free speech in this country, we increasingly remove topics from the agenda altogether that are simply not up for discussion. When the media refuse to run particular stories, they encourage this removal of discussion from the public forum and push alternative voices to the fringes. In many cases, these alternative views do not go away altogether but, being pushed out of the mainstream, find other outlets without any robust discussion of the view to hold them to account. In many respects, this makes it far easier for such voices to win people to their cause.

President Obama said in an address to the United Nations ‘…laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech’. Rowan Atkinson said something similar in his support for the Reform Section 5 campaign. He commented:

For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed... if we want a robust society, we need more robust dialogue and that must include the right to insult or to offend.

However, media refusal to report legitimate stories, even where they do not tie in to their predisposed agenda, have real knock-on effects for free speech, those who may disagree and, consequently, those who agree as well.

Thatcher's funeral and the ultimate democracy

After this, this and this one wondered whether Giles Fraser was ever going to stumble upon something with which I can agree. Just when we may have given up hope, Fraser offers this astute theological observation in today's Guardian:

I have buried some extraordinary wrong 'uns in my time: crooks, murderers, wife-beaters and swindlers. But these funerals were never lies, because unlike a secular send-off, where the past virtues of the deceased necessarily take centre stage, the Christian funeral can leave all that stuff to God. It is not, first and foremost, the celebration of a life or the retelling of achievement. It is an unsentimental acknowledgment that death is the ultimate democracy. It comes to us all – the good and the bad, the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak. And with death in a Christian context also comes a recognition that we are all subject to the mercy of God for our failings. "However families or states want to dress up and create an occasion, the heart of a funeral is very simple," was how Canon Mark Oakley put it in his sermon last Sunday at St Paul's.

He illustrated the point with reference to the funerals of Habsburg royalty. As the funeral procession approached the closed doors of the Imperial chapel in Vienna, a voice from inside would ask, "who is it?". The grand chamberlain would read out a long list of grand titles. The voice from the church then replied: "We know him not." The chamberlain would try again, with a shortened version, and received the same reply. Finally, the chamberlain knocks on the door. Again comes the question, "who is it?", and this time, eschewing all pomp and ceremony, he answers: "A sinner in need of God's mercy." "Him we know; enter," comes the reply.

Today is the one day that I will not be demonstrating or turning my back. For Thatcher and I share that final description: both of us failed, both in need of forgiveness. Its the ultimate human solidarity. And while I recognise that many find the language of sin and judgment increasingly uncongenial, it is nonetheless for precisely this reason that it is such a theological mistake to use her funeral as an occasion for grand political theatre, inviting comparisons with Winston Churchill. As the Habsburg funerals recognised, none of that makes any difference in the ultimate scheme of things.

Without God, final judgment becomes the domain of the crowd and the newspapers. I once asked the former archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, what he really wanted to say to Robert Mugabe before his trip to Zimbabwe, back in 2010. The archbishop looked up from his drink, and dropped his voice: "There is no immunity from prosecution when you are dead," he said. And no, this column is not deliberately putting Margaret Thatcher in the company of thieves and dictators to make a political point. I'm putting us all in that company to make a theological one.

Fraser's point is a biblical one. Death is the ultimate leveller from which none of us escape. As the writer to the Hebrews states, "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (9:27, ESV)". Indeed, Peter makes clear that we will all have to stand before a holy God and give account of our lives (see 1 Pet. 4:17f).

Nevertheless, Paul comments:

all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:23-26, ESV)

Fraser is quite correct that we must rely on God's mercy when we stand before Him in the judgment. However, if our reliance on God's mercy is a mere hope we will simply be let off the hook, then we have entirely failed to grasp the nature of God's justice. On the other hand, if we are relying on the redemptive work of Jesus we have good grounds to receive God's mercy. For, in Jesus, God punished the sin of those who receive Christ by faith and there is nothing more to be paid. This meets God's justice whilst simultaneously allowing God to show mercy to the sinner. Thus God is both just - by actually punishing sin in Christ - as well as the justifier, by his grace, of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Therefore the Christian has nothing to fear in death. As the writer to the Hebrews goes on, having spoken of the inevitability of death and judgment, he comments "so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him (Heb. 9:28, ESV)". 

Why I do not accept Thatcher was motivated by Christian principles

Archbishop Cranmer has commented today that "Margaret Thatcher renewed the relationship between Christianity and Conservatism". He claims that Thatcher's "Conservatism was deeply rooted in Christianity" and argues "Christ, for her, was intrinsic to all of social and political life, and His eradication from society was not possible 'without a terrible consequence'". He insists "Margaret Thatcher did God with a sincere reflective and profoundly theological mindset: she read her Bible, preached in pulpits and applied her theology to her programme of government". In short, he argues, Margaret Thatcher was a Christian and it was her Christian principle that informed her Conservatism.

I cannot, and do not, accept this assessment. Even by Cranmer's own admission:

For centuries preceding Margaret Thatcher, the Church of England had been 'the Conservative Party at prayer'. The maxim endured until the mid-80s, during which decade the tensions between the Church and the Conservative Party were considered to have buried the whole notion. The Tory-Anglican relationship undoubtedly reached its nadir during her premiership...

Whilst it would be theologically and ecclesiastically illiterate to associate Christianity with Anglicanism alone, it is significant that the Anglican church - a traditionally Conservative-supporting institution - openly turned away from the Conservative Party under Thatcher. The notion of the Anglican Church being the "Conservative Party at prayer" was undone by Thatcher. Specifically, the Church viewed Thatcherite approaches to the poor and vulnerable as fundamentally unscriptural.

It is possible to concede that Margaret Thatcher held to some form of cultural Christianity. However, Matthew Parris hardly gives the impression that Thatcher held to the truths of orthodox Christianity. He states:

20 years ago, I handed her [Margaret Thatcher] (as her correspondence clerk) a letter from a lady unknown to her, who had just lost her husband. It would be a great comfort (she told Mrs Thatcher) to know that she would see him again one day in Heaven; and as she had great respect for Mrs Thatcher, it would strengthen her faith if she could know that Mrs Thatcher, too, believed in the Life Hereafter.

This was not an inquiry I could answer on the Conservative leader's behalf. Her advice came back to me the next morning in the form of her personal, handwritten letter to our correspondent. Her answer consisted in a single, chilling sentence. "Christians believe in the after-life, and I am a Christian."

I'm afraid I took that as a No. Or at least a Don't Know. And it sparked an interest that I've pursued ever since, in the real as opposed to stated metaphysical beliefs of British political leaders.

Parris is apt to view Mrs Thatcher's self-designation as a Christian - especially in light of her less than equivocal claim to belief in orthodoxy - as somewhat questionable. 

Equally, scripture itself speaks against Cranmer's claim. Firstly, there is Thatcher's now infamous comment:

...there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

Such a statement is clearly antithetical to the biblical writings (see Deut 15:11; Prov 11:25, 14:21; Luke 6:27-36, 38; Philippians 2:3; Galatians 5:13-15; Hebrews 13:16; 1 Jn 3:17-18;  et al). The bible is clear that there is such a thing as society and the Christian is not simply supposed to look after me and mine. Instead, the Christian is to prefer the needs of others above their own. The position above, espoused by Thatcher, in no way accords with scripture or Christian principle. 

Similarly, Thatcherite policies toward the poor and vulnerable do little to suggest an approach influenced by these scriptural writings. The right-to-buy scheme appeared to put the desires of those who could afford to buy a home above the needs of those who couldn't afford to rent one. The call of Luke 6:31 appears to have been ignored when one compares her own ousting from power with her approach to the pit closures and privatisation redundancies over which she presided. The callous approach to those who lost jobs during the period does not accord with scriptural calls to look after the poor and needy.

Apart from social policy, Thatcherism - backed in many ways by Reaganomics - encouraged a mentality, encapsulated by Gordon Gekko in the film Wall Street,  which says "greed is good". Even a brief look at the New Testament writings could not lead you to such a conclusion. Yet Thatcherism encouraged private ownership, supported grasping at profit and stoked the base desire to hoard personal wealth.

Looking at the evidence, it seems hard to uphold that Margaret Thatcher was motivated by Christian principles and her Conservatism was rooted in Christianity.

Church climbing, pride and why I'm not like you

Church climbing is a particularly repellent activity. Treating the church as though there is some sort of greasy pole to climb really irritates me. The people that do this are not difficult to spot and are replete in our churches. 

I am sure we all know the sorts I mean - you can spot them a mile off. They are the ones looking for position in the church, those desperately hoping to catch the eye of elders and ministers. They shoehorn theological training into conversation, the places they have preached are mentioned apropos of nothing and, serendipitously, their latest set of sermon notes happen to fall out of their bible right in front of the minister. If they are musical, they happen to be at the piano after the service, just 'messing around' of course. They name-drop in the hope you may know and respect the people with whom they are connected. They are networkers, talking to all and sundry without ever really finding out about, or listening to, those whom they are speaking. They ask you about these same things to find out where you stand in the church pecking order. They cosy up to those who can get them on and laud it over those they perceive as inferior. They are the proud, superior church climbers seeking position and recognition.

It seems clear that this is nothing short of pride. It is a pride that assumes theological training is the same as knowledge and wisdom. It presumes you do not have training, or your training is worse than mine, so I understand things on a level you do not. It says I have experience in preaching, missions, childrens' work, music, or whatever, that really set me apart from others. It thinks, if others really knew about my background, education and abilities they would see that I really should be given position in the church. In fact, I really should be leading things in some way. Of course, these people never quite frame it in this way. Nevertheless, that is essentially the heart of this sort of self-promotion. It's the idea, if people really knew what I can do/have done, it's just obvious that I am the best person for the job. That is the heart of it and it is an ugly, repellent sin.

Now, I accept, I may have mentioned some of these things during conversations in church. Of course, when I do it, I'm not showing off and am certainly not seeking position in the church. When I raise these things it is because I want to be useful in the church and, how can I best be used if people don't know my experience, background and training? I'm not being proud when I claim my qualifications outflank yours, I'm just stating a fact acknowledged throughout academia. When I talk about my years of experience in preaching and missions I'm just highlighting that I may be able to serve the church in this way. The difference between me and you is: I'm not church climbing, I'm just factually stating my experience. Nevertheless, even though theological training, preaching experience and background in missions are never mentioned as a qualification for office in the church, it's pretty clear once you know these things about me I should be in the running. I'm not being proud, I'm just trying to make the most of my gifts and serve the church as best I can.

I'm not a church climber. It's just that, when all is said and done, my experience and training put me in a strong position to serve the church. In fact, I could serve the church all the more if I am given an office and it's pretty clear my experience lends itself to that. I am being servant hearted, trying to use all my gifts where they will best be utilised by the church. When you do it, you're being proud and grasping at position - that's obvious. When I do it, I'm really serving the church and seeking to make the most of my gifts. When you do it, you are a proud church climber. When I do it, I'm being a humble servant of the church. 

That is presumably why I find church climbing so irritating and offensive. If you really understood things the way I do, you would see how much more qualified I am than you for position in the church. You go about crassly stating your experience and qualification in the hope of a role for which you are clearly ruled out both inherently, by your pride, and comparatively, compared to me. I, on the other hand, just make known these things because, of course, the facts will speak for themselves.

When you do it, you're a proud, arrogant, misguided church climber. When I do it, I'm a humble, servant-hearted individual seeking to serve the church as best I am able. When you do it, it's definitely a sin, we all see that. When I do it, and if I'm given a role, it's for the church's good.

Why the Christian can celebrate this Easter

Here are the words of Paul, speaking about the resurrection and its importance to the Christian faith:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor 15:12-19)

Paul is clear that without the resurrection the Christian faith is meaningless and Christians are the most sad of sad cases.

Fortunately for the Christian, Paul goes on to say "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor 15:20)". Indeed, there are good grounds to believe that Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead. William Lane Craig offers evidence for the resurrection here and John Stevens explains some of the implications of this glorious truth here.

There are plenty of reasons for the Christian to rejoice this Easter. Nevertheless, let the final word go to Peter:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)