Doing Evil That Good May Come
Much publicity has been given to a film purporting to portray the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which has been widely acclaimed in the USA by professed Evangelicals, with churches booking all the seats in some cinemas and doing all they can to fill them. One pastor of a charismatic church was quoted in The Scotsman (7 February 2004): “Churches used to communicate by having a little lecture time on Sunday morning. People don’t interact that way any more. Here’s a chance for us to use a modern-day technique to communicate the truth of the Bible.” The film was due to arrive in the UK in March, though not, initially at least, with such enthusiastic support.
Criticisms of this film have mainly concentrated on its alleged sadism and anti-Semitism. In the USA under 17s were not to be admitted unless accompanied by an adult, because of the extreme violence depicted. It is significant that the Holy Scriptures are extremely restrained in their accounts of the physical sufferings of our Lord. This is in keeping with the fact that “the soul of His sufferings was the sufferings of His soul”. While the sufferings inflicted on Him by men were a necessary and bitter ingredient of the cup He had to drink, it was His willing submission to the righteous wrath of God He bore in the place of His people that was the major element in His atoning sacrifice. It is the power of truth proclaimed by word in the gospel, and not human imagination, that is used by the Holy Spirit to bring sinners savingly to “behold the Lamb of God”.
Roman Catholicism’s mythology and emphasis on the visual drama of the mass rather than biblical truth is the basis of the view of Christ’s passion informing this production by a conservative Roman Catholic intent on promoting his religion. Whether or not charges of anti-Semitism are justified in this case, they seem to be advanced by those to whom all religions are equally valid or invalid, or those who regard Christianity as essentially anti-Semitic, or those who would be opposed to laying the guilt of our Lord’s death at anyone’s door – who would oppose the suggestion that anyone should
repent of this sin against God and embrace the previously-rejected Saviour.
Apart from the general fact that the fictional film industry has been a major expression of, and contributor to, the moral corruption of societies, the particular and fundamental objection to this film is that any attempt to present an image of the Lord Jesus Christ is blasphemous. Included in the sins forbidden in the Second Commandment is “the making of any representation of God, of all or any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever” (Larger Catechism 109; Deut 4, Rom 1). Christ, “being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever” (Shorter Catechism 21). It is impossible to make an artistic representation of the One in whose face and person the light of the knowledge of the glory of God is given. It is no doubt to caution against such attempts being made that the Scriptures provide no materials which could facilitate the endeavour.
The idea that the cause of the gospel can be furthered by the use of a blasphemous medium to present a Jesus who is not the Christ of God only illustrates how far removed from the gospel of the Bible and of the Reformation are so many who claim to be Evangelicals. How far removed such a stance is from that of the inspired apostle: “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor 2:2-5).
HMC
Profaning the Sabbath
Public violations of the Fourth Commandment have become so common that those who “call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable” (Is 58:13), often feel overwhelmed with the apparent hopelessness of attempting to resist the tide, especially perhaps in the larger urban centres of population. However, there are still Sabbath-breaking and God-defying activities which stand out among others for their sheer audacity. One such is the intention to move the September open-air concert and fireworks display which mark the end of the summer Festival season in Edinburgh from the Saturday to the Sabbath evening. It is estimated that over a quarter of a million people attend this event, and concerns have been expressed at the hundreds of underage teenagers who have been found with drink in recent years. There are fears of drink-related offences making families reluctant to attend.
Brian McMaster, the Director of the International Festival, hopes that the change will make the event “more family-friendly” and indicates that they
will be looking at introducing further events on the Sabbath next year as part of the evolution of the Festival. Assistant Chief Constable Ian Dickinson welcomes the change as a means of promoting less congestion in the city centre and a safer environment for families. Ray Macfarlane, head of Community Investment at the Bank of Scotland, the sponsor of this event, is happy to support the change of day, regarding it as important that the concert continues to develop and extend its appeal to the widest possible audience. Another reason given is the desire to wait until the conclusion of a multicultural festival which ends that day. Those involved in tourism also contemplate with pleasure the financial gain expected from inducing more visitors to spend another day in the city.
There is no regard whatsoever to the fact that such a move profanes the Sabbath Day and is an affront to God. The Festival season itself, according to the published programmes and reports, is for many an opportunity to parade and promote unashamed immorality in the name of culture and art. To bring it to a conclusion with such publicly-sponsored contempt for the Lord’s Day is adding insult to injury. “Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? Yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath” (Neh 13:17,18). It is a further indication of a rejection of the authority of God to whom civil rulers are accountable (Rom 13), an authority which requires recognition of the Sabbath Day: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath” (Mark 4:27,28).
Ignorance and delusion have taken possession of those in authority; they cannot see that it is inevitable that, as they themselves reject the authority of God, His temporal judgement on them will involve an increase in that rejection of human authority and civilised behaviour which professedly causes them such concern. “Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed” (1 Sam 2:30).
HMC
The Evil of Terrorism in Spain
How unspeakably solemn that almost 200 souls were in an instant ushered into the eternal world by terrorist bombs in Madrid! One cannot but feel prayerful sympathy for the many hundreds who mourn the deaths of loved ones; but we must also consider this horrendous event as a loud call to everyone to be prepared to meet their God. This brutal mass murder demonstrates once again the profound contempt for human life, and the fanatical hatred towards their fellow humans, harboured by terrorists, whether they belong to ETA (the violent Basque separatist group), or al-Qaeda, or the IRA.
All human beings, because of the Fall, are “hateful, and hating one another” (Titus 3:3) until they are converted. Yet this is especially seen in its stark and chilling horror in such atrocities. It was also seen in the final message of two suicide bombers from the UK – recorded before they set out on a murderous mission to Tel Aviv – claiming that it was a great honour to kill Jews.
On the other hand, how ironic that certain other terrorists, and supporters of terrorist movements, condemn the Madrid atrocity as if they would never be associated with such an incident themselves! Such was the response to the bombing by Arnaldo Otegi of Batasuna, the political wing of ETA. Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, the IRA’s political wing, also condemned the bombing, something he would have shied away from a few years ago. Some days before the bombing Adams was actually mixing with leaders of Batasuna at Sinn Féin’s annual conference in Dublin. No doubt his condemnation of the bombing arises from the fact that should ETA be found to have perpetrated the attacks, his position could become delicate.
Adams, like Yasser Arafat, and with comparable plausibility, continues to deny complicity in terrorism, writes an Ulster minister. “Both cultivate the fiction of separation from the violent organizations that serve their respective goals – destruction of British rule in Ulster, and of Israel. A mural on an Ulster wall proclaims IRA solidarity with Arafat’s cause.”
It seems impossible to eradicate terrorism. Stanley Baldwin, then a senior Government minister, told the Commons in 1932: “I think it is as well for the man in the street to realise that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through.” Very true – but there is a Power in heaven to whom we may turn. While we are to pray to God that those engaged in the fight against terrorism would have success in bringing the murderers and other men of violence to justice, our primary petitions must be, “Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth”. Only then will peace and security prevail in nations and between factions.
NMR
Gambling Addiction Likely to Increase
Britain could face a sharp rise in gambling addiction if the Government’s plans to relax gaming laws are introduced, says a new report. The number of “problem gamblers” (defined as those whose families are “damaged” by their compulsion to bet) may increase from the current level of 400 000 adults to over 700 000 by 2010.
It is estimated that the nation will bet an extra £1 billion each year as a direct consequence of a Bill that would encourage the setting up of large casinos across the country. Tim Vine, a spokesman for the Department of
Culture, Media and Sport, which is responsible for the draft Bill, denied that the increase in tax revenue was the motivating factor behind the proposals. Nevertheless, the Government could gain an extra £400 million in tax annually by 2010 if the Bill were introduced, according to the report. Mr Vine stated that the current legislation dated back to the 1960s, “when gambling was perceived as an evil that had to be controlled”.
It is deplorable that the Government should propose such a Bill, but even more so that it should close its eyes to the fact that gambling is indeed a great evil, which should be banned. But successive governments have been “greedy of gain”. This was patently obvious when Premium Bonds were introduced in 1956, and also the National Lottery in 1993 (the objective of which is “to maximise revenue for Good Causes and the Government“).
Of course, gamblers themselves, by gambling, are guilty, among other sins, of idolatry. The basic motivation in gambling is covetousness, and this, Scripture tells us, is “idolatry”. At the same time, governments which use gambling to collect revenue must be branded as “greedy of gain”, and thus are a cause of much misery among those whom they govern. “He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house” (Prov 15:27). NMR
“Euthanasia on the Sly”
A Lancaster man, Mr Leslie Burke, who suffers from a degenerative disease, has begun a test case at the High Court against General Medical Council guidelines which allow doctors to withdraw hydration and artificial feeding from terminally-ill patients, thus leaving them to die. Mr Burke fears that, as his disease advances, doctors could eventually decide that the quality of his life is so poor that he should not be kept alive. “Physically, my body will deteriorate,” said Mr Burke, “but I will be mentally alert the whole time. I may not be able to communicate with the doctors and it takes two to three weeks to die when hydration and nutrition are withdrawn, and I will be acutely aware of that every single day and, physically, not be able to do anything about it.”
A physician wrote in a letter to the press, “To subject an apparently unresponsive or ‘locked-in’ human being, who may be aware of what is happening, to the agony of death by thirst is probably the most diabolical form of execution by torture imaginable”. Another correspondent states, “If someone deliberately withheld food and water from a dog or a horse until it died, they could be prosecuted, fined and possibly imprisoned. To allow a human being to die in this way is simply euthanasia kept within the letter of the law.”
The GMC guidelines must be revised. They have been in force since 1993, notes a journalist, “when the House of Lords ruled that Tony Bland, who was in a persistent vegetative state, could have artificial feeding withdrawn after
court approval. Astonishingly, for any patients suffering from other conditions, the GMC states food and drink can be withdrawn without the courts’ consent. It is estimated that this affects thousands of dying patients a year.”
Mr Burke may possibly win his case, considering that a mother, Mrs Carol Glass of Portsmouth, recently won a five-year legal battle against medical authorities who decided that her disabled son, hospitalised with a serious respiratory infection, should be removed from his life-support machine and injected with diamorphine in order to let him “die with dignity”. She removed her son from their care and nursed him at home until he recovered. Although her claim that medical staff acted beyond their legal powers was rejected by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled in her favour. While we deplore our national courts being under the authority of the European Court of Human Rights, it is a relief that the ruling will mean that hospitals who want to withhold or withdraw treatment against the wishes of a patient or their family must first seek a decision from our courts, unless there are “exceptional” circumstances”. As Mrs Glass said, the actions of the doctors who were treating her son amounted to “euthanasia on the sly”. It would be most encouraging if the High Court ruled in Mr Burke’s favour.
Our society cannot be considered God-honouring – and it even loses its claim to be civilised – if we ignore Scripture principles about the sanctity of life, as summed up, for example, in the Larger Catechism. The Sixth Commandment requires all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life and that of others. We must accordingly comfort and succour the distressed, and protect and defend the innocent. The same Commandment forbids us to neglect, or withdraw, the necessary means of preserving life.
NMR
Gender Recognition Bill Decision
The Government’s Gender Recognition Bill (by which a man would be able to obtain a birth certificate stating he was born a woman, or vice versa, and thus allow, for example, two men to marry each other legally) has made its way undefeated through the House of Lords. It is now well on its way to becoming law, if God does not prevent it.
Some of our readers who have been prayerfully concerned about it have written to various peers. They are no doubt disappointed by the narrow defeat of Baroness O’Cathain’s amendment to allow churches to exclude transsexuals from membership and office. No fewer than three of the five Bishops in the House voted against the amendment. Shame on them! As one peer said in a letter to us, “I am still reeling from the shock. You have no doubt heard that we lost by just five votes in a very big vote.” Had those three bishops voted for the amendment, it would have gone through by one vote.
Lady O’Cathain is to be highly commended for the fight she put up against
the Bill. One report stated that “in the course of six separate debates in the House of Lords, she spoke for a total of around two-and-a-half hours, and tabled almost 30 different amendments. She argued from an explicitly Christian position, unashamedly quoting the Bible and arguing in defence of church teaching.”
Another peer, in reply to our letter, quoted the fourth Earl of Pembroke: “A parliament can do anything but make a man a woman, and a woman a man”. He then said about the Gender Recognition Bill: “Perhaps never before has there been a Bill which so challenges the very nature of reality”. More solemn still is the defiant challenge it makes to the Divine Lawgiver. How long will God suffer our blatant rebellion? “O Lord, I have heard Thy speech, and was afraid: O Lord, revive Thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy” (Hab 3:2). NMR