Is God watching you, or at the very least, making a list of the indiscretions you make?
Many of us when we were children, have had instilled into our conscience, the idea that God is watching. Perhaps a parent may have used the phrase as a form of deterrent for a wayward child, or an authority figure, whose parental authority was not sacrosanct, suggested that you needed to do what you were told, or you will have God to answer to at the end. These statements imply that there is a standard of behaviour we ought to follow, so we might as well start by doing the right thing now.People have an idea of God today, where you should expect his judgement for your behaviour and consider him to be vengeful or full of wrath, regarding your wrongdoing. Others let our conscience tell us whether, our behaviour or attitude is right, or wrong. I am sure that you, like me, have heard people use the phrase ‘it’s common sense,’ when they observe behaviour in others that is contrary to the usual rules, routines, and attitudes towards social etiquette, and have made a judgement about someone else, because of their actions.
The idea that God holds the key to our collective morality is largely a legacy of our Christian culture. Today, we are reminded of societies apparent failings through the churches stance regarding the ethics of popular culture or revisionist ideology. This is typically portrayed through the diatribe of street preachers using the public arena to try to shock people into feeling guilty for the state of their lives. As a Christian, I have always been guarded by this style of preaching and the real emotions it brings up in people's thoughts, as though to cement the opinion that they already have, that religion is not for them.
Indeed, many comedic sketches remind us of our experiences with these types of itinerant preachers, who believe they have a right to invade your sense of peace whilst walking in public spaces, often with a torrent of vitriol to do with hell, fire, and brimstone. The thought that lies behind these people’s sense of responsibility is that they believe they have a right to tell you this. It stems from the notion that God is absolute in his dislike of sin and that as sinful people, we ought to give God an answer for our behaviour.
Often, the narrative used by the street preacher will state that the answer to your questions about life and the trouble you experience in finding the inner peace you long for, is because you have turned from God’s law. Their narrative is generally focused on the wrong you have done, or what you have failed to do, with an emotive plea aimed at reconciling your nature to the one God demands of you. They reinforce this idea with an overbearing tirade of stereotypical behaviours that paint humanity with such a broad brush, that perhaps, at least one of the lists of misdemeanours they proclaim to be harmful, might fit you.
What most people hear is not the story of God’s love, but his judgement. We listen to the list of ‘wrong’s’ and think to ourselves, ‘what the hell!’ We could never match up to the demands that God asks of us, so by default, we discount the voice of the preacher, or the assumptions we make from the demands of the church, and choose to ignore it as background noise, from outdated institutions that no longer have a voice within the public arena.
Who are these people to tell us that our lifestyles do not meet with God’s expectation? They do not even know us. To simply paint a generalised picture of human behaviour and suggest it is indicative of all human beings, is simply incompatible with the day-to-day experiences of most people, leaving us with the feeling that the preacher's right to express this opinion in the public setting is unwarranted and repugnant.
For many of us, this type of speech borders on what is known today as ‘hate-speech.’ It reveals in the person, a sense of pre-judgement, and a lack of tolerance towards someone with an alternative viewpoint. Speaking in this way, and invoking God into the argument, cements a common view that “if I need to believe what you believe to get into the kingdom of God, then I would rather stay away, than be associated with you.”
This type of theology is taken completely out of context for most of us who follow Jesus. We do not live in a state of ‘fear’, nor do we do good things simply to please God. God does not want you to come to faith in him through coercion. In Christianity, it is God who does the work, not us. Through the self-sacrifice of Jesus in response to his detractors, God pulls off the most magnificent of all acts, in laying down his life for those he loves, so that we do not feel the effects of the so-called, self-righteous judgement of the preacher, because God’s love for us wins.
We see this happening throughout social media channels, where opinion and counter argument polarises viewpoints. The rise of the social media troll is a good example of a human behaviour, where polarised opinion can be expressed without fear of reprisal or intimidation from the listener. Lacking the structure of the rules for debate, it is easy to hide behind your comments, rather like the driver of a car who does not follow the rules of the road, but whose actions cause chaos for other road users behind them. It is quite understandable that we look at the injustice in the world around us and believe that we are alone in the fight for understanding on the ‘issues’, within the enlightenment of the digital age.
We have seen a tremendous rise in popular uprisings designed to challenge authority and put under the microscope, the culture that sustains indifference to the suffering of another human being, or the subjugation of people groups to apparent injustice. We can see this throughout our popular culture and institutions, where young people rise to support a cause because they feel that those with the power to bring about change, have failed in their stewardship of the hopes and dreams for which they hold.
I greatly admire Sir Lewis Hamilton as an ambassador for the Black Lives Matter movement and for his stance on the equality of opportunity within motor sport. He can use his platform to push forward this ideology to bring about change within motor racing and as such, becomes an icon for others who strive to rise to the heights he has risen. Indeed, his slogan is ‘still we rise.’ There is another side to this story too. Not content with simply expressing his concerns or taking the knee at each race, Sir Lewis has begun a commission to put fresh impetus into championing these ideals through tangible outcomes, such as education and training. However, he is not the first driver to do this. Lewis’s hero, Ayrton Senna, formed the Senna Foundation, offering support to the education systems of Brazil, and the children living in poverty, who might not fulfil their potential because of their circumstances.
We have seen a tremendous rise in popular uprisings designed to challenge authority and put under the microscope, the culture that sustains indifference to the suffering of another human being, or the subjugation of people groups to apparent injustice. We can see this throughout our popular culture and institutions, where young people rise to support a cause because they feel that those with the power to bring about change, have failed in their stewardship of the hopes and dreams for which they hold.
I greatly admire Sir Lewis Hamilton as an ambassador for the Black Lives Matter movement and for his stance on the equality of opportunity within motor sport. He can use his platform to push forward this ideology to bring about change within motor racing and as such, becomes an icon for others who strive to rise to the heights he has risen. Indeed, his slogan is ‘still we rise.’ There is another side to this story too. Not content with simply expressing his concerns or taking the knee at each race, Sir Lewis has begun a commission to put fresh impetus into championing these ideals through tangible outcomes, such as education and training. However, he is not the first driver to do this. Lewis’s hero, Ayrton Senna, formed the Senna Foundation, offering support to the education systems of Brazil, and the children living in poverty, who might not fulfil their potential because of their circumstances.
It is healthy for society to have freedom of expression and to push for change within the institutions that govern our day-to-day lives. But what I see as the result of social media, is that people take up a cause, believing that they alone have the answers to resolving the issues of the moment. Just as we might walk past a street preacher who feels that their opinion is the only true expression of faith, and ignore them, equally as many, ignore the voices of those demanding social change. Greta Thunberg, the environmental activist, heightened awareness for climate change and ecological disaster, influencing the minds of many people, young and old alike. Yet, the level of hate directed at her position is indicative of the mood of those choosing to stand against such concerns. Wherever there are those asking the difficult questions regarding our behaviour, social constructs, institutions and those in authority, there will be push-back.
Similarly, you can find many different expressions of the same ideology, all striving to achieve the same goal, yet are found arguing amongst themselves about the finer details of their position. From the outside, this appears to be nothing more than arguing semantics, appearing as though they are set apart from each other, as can be seen in the LGBTQ+ community, where there are tensions between the status of certain gender groups and the entitlement that this affords. You will find this going on in the church, as well as in politics, philosophy, economics...
The popular themes of tolerance and equality are ethical and moral values that transcend time and space and are far more than a sign of this age. Indeed, Christians would argue that these qualities come from the very heart of God. So, when someone stands up for injustice and seeks restitution, these are characteristics that Christians and the church should align themselves with, but there is always a cost. To align opposing viewpoints due to the appearance of tolerance is to suggest that all other debate is cancelled out. If popular culture identifies an opinion as displaying bigotry towards another, from a position of authority, the argument goes that they are the oppressor.
Instead of taking part in the debate to further our understanding of the issues, the debate is cut short by soundbite. Christianity has always stood up for inclusion and stood against any form of discrimination, where tolerance, diversity, and equality, are respected and valued. Indeed, God holds to these values too. We are to look after the marginalised and the oppressed, and the ones held captive by the dogma of cultural, political, or religious morality. The debate is not to simply insert a new dogma over the top of an older more established set of beliefs, rather it is to elevate the plight of those who are suppressed or repressed by
those in authority, and bring about change.
It is a year since the death of George Floyd (25th May 2020), which triggered the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The actions of a policeman highlighted the injustice that people of black and ethnic minorities experienced, in predominantly white, western cultures. This was not the first, but one of many deaths of black and ethnic minorities at the hands of the police. This incident has echoes of the Stephen Lawrence case in the UK in April 1993, where institutional racism by the metropolitan police, and the complication of the letter-of-the-law, meant his murderers could remain free until a retrial in January 2012, almost 14 yrs later. What was different with the altercation with George Floyd, was that it captured attention in a way that no other had before; we witnessed it happen in real time. The testimony of the people, led to a groundswell of support, based on the statements made by eyewitnesses who filmed the altercation:
The public condemnation of a sponsored institution stoked the kindling that was already piling up. The resultant rise of the term ‘woke,’ is apt for the social change now being demanded by those who are the victims of racially aggravated stereotyping, and behaviour. I have seen WOKE described as an acronym for Wisdom, Opportunity, Knowledge and Empowerment, while others have suggested it is a shortened adjective for awakening – being aware of social issues, namely racism. Unfortunately, it is also used against those campaigning for social change, as a derogatory term designed to deflect from the integrity of those who are its proponents. Whilst each side argues however, there is a sense that real change can come, from such adversity. As Christians, we appreciate in Jesus, the expression of laying down one’s life, but in this setting, and at the hands of people charged with protecting us, the injustice of what we watched, and the statement “I can’t breathe,” screams out at us from every possible emotion, or rational thought.
Woke ideology - alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
“I can’t breathe.”
The public condemnation of a sponsored institution stoked the kindling that was already piling up. The resultant rise of the term ‘woke,’ is apt for the social change now being demanded by those who are the victims of racially aggravated stereotyping, and behaviour. I have seen WOKE described as an acronym for Wisdom, Opportunity, Knowledge and Empowerment, while others have suggested it is a shortened adjective for awakening – being aware of social issues, namely racism. Unfortunately, it is also used against those campaigning for social change, as a derogatory term designed to deflect from the integrity of those who are its proponents. Whilst each side argues however, there is a sense that real change can come, from such adversity. As Christians, we appreciate in Jesus, the expression of laying down one’s life, but in this setting, and at the hands of people charged with protecting us, the injustice of what we watched, and the statement “I can’t breathe,” screams out at us from every possible emotion, or rational thought.The fight for equality and social justice is a key tenant of the apostle Paul’s teaching (between A.D. 33 to A.D. 64). Against the background of Roman ideology (Imperial right to rule), Greek philosophy (Socrates, Plato), and the religion of the places he wrote to, Paul states that:
“There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male, and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
(Galatians 3:28)
The apostle, Luke, in compiling the book of Acts (ch.17), records the argument Paul presents at the Areopagus in Athens, where in verse 26, Paul makes the claim that we all come from the same root; that we are all God inspired, and God breathed; we belong together; and we are all identical (not a collapse of competing identities). This teaching is one of inclusion, and is not intended as an erasure of cultural identity, as some might suggest. Your distinctiveness adds to the whole, and we all benefit from what you bring.
A church true to itself does not follow contemporary culture and ideology, but shapes and forms it. Within its core being lie social justice, equality, and the restoration of those left downtrodden and enslaved through the past or present circumstance. God wants to renew you, with all that makes you, you. Your uniqueness has value, and is embraced by God because he chose to make you as you are. Unfortunately, this has led to the uniqueness of the individual being lost, for fear of wanting to fit in, in favour of a western, predominantly white, culture.
Because of the position the church has held for two millennia, it is easy to see how its failings has led to the confusion people have with its current position. The apparent brokenness of the church in society, means that the traditional values it once held to have been jettisoned, in favour of a post-modernist morality, where laws are being redefined without the rules having been fully worked through. Indeed, those re-creating the rules in their image, have not fully formed the image, thereby creating the tensions you see in the organisations behind the agents of change. For example, the BLM movement is charged with right-wing activism, which is deemed in and of itself, to be racist. Alongside this, is the redefining, or the changing of words, to give them new meaning. Wrestling the meaning away from the traditional definition, so that people think they know what you are inferring to when using the term, when in effect, you mean something else entirely. In doing this, you aim to seek to justify this new paradigm, whilst observing the structure of the traditional meaning, yet subtly changing the landscape to make it fit.
The word marriage is one such term to single out as an example, because it has profound meaning for the structure of the society for which it is based. The Christian definition of marriage between a man and woman, in the eyes of God, has been challenged by the gender identity movement. That marriage can be between consenting adults of any gender is not an issue. Rather, it is the legal implications for the term, ‘in the eyes of God.’ In the Bible, marriage is termed as being between a man and woman. For same sex and transgender groups to use the word marriage, requires a redefinition of what the term marriage represents, as its origins are based within religion, rather than in sexual ethics.
The argument tends to polarise the position between the secular and the religious, and the relationship between the church and the state. The philosophical debate concerning sexual ethics, morality, and interpersonal relationships, covers aspects of gender identification and sexual expression, consent, and the abuse of these. Marriage is one of mutual respect and admiration for each other. Each party would willingly sacrifice themselves for the sake of their spouse, till death us do part. If this is how marriage was to be defined, then the Christian idea of marriage and the secular one, would have parallel worth. Yet, I fear that the argument is simply to do with gender politics. Isn’t it now possible for both heterosexual and LGBTQ+ marriage to have parity?
Because of the position the church has held for two millennia, it is easy to see how its failings has led to the confusion people have with its current position. The apparent brokenness of the church in society, means that the traditional values it once held to have been jettisoned, in favour of a post-modernist morality, where laws are being redefined without the rules having been fully worked through. Indeed, those re-creating the rules in their image, have not fully formed the image, thereby creating the tensions you see in the organisations behind the agents of change. For example, the BLM movement is charged with right-wing activism, which is deemed in and of itself, to be racist. Alongside this, is the redefining, or the changing of words, to give them new meaning. Wrestling the meaning away from the traditional definition, so that people think they know what you are inferring to when using the term, when in effect, you mean something else entirely. In doing this, you aim to seek to justify this new paradigm, whilst observing the structure of the traditional meaning, yet subtly changing the landscape to make it fit.
The word marriage is one such term to single out as an example, because it has profound meaning for the structure of the society for which it is based. The Christian definition of marriage between a man and woman, in the eyes of God, has been challenged by the gender identity movement. That marriage can be between consenting adults of any gender is not an issue. Rather, it is the legal implications for the term, ‘in the eyes of God.’ In the Bible, marriage is termed as being between a man and woman. For same sex and transgender groups to use the word marriage, requires a redefinition of what the term marriage represents, as its origins are based within religion, rather than in sexual ethics.
The argument tends to polarise the position between the secular and the religious, and the relationship between the church and the state. The philosophical debate concerning sexual ethics, morality, and interpersonal relationships, covers aspects of gender identification and sexual expression, consent, and the abuse of these. Marriage is one of mutual respect and admiration for each other. Each party would willingly sacrifice themselves for the sake of their spouse, till death us do part. If this is how marriage was to be defined, then the Christian idea of marriage and the secular one, would have parallel worth. Yet, I fear that the argument is simply to do with gender politics. Isn’t it now possible for both heterosexual and LGBTQ+ marriage to have parity?
Yes, it does have parity. To continue to stand against the Christian ideal of marriage between a man and a woman, when parity has been achieved, simply because you disagree with that worldview, only continues the schism, simply for the sake of the argument. Is it not enough that marriage is defined to meet the needs of a specific person group? For those who choose to enter the covenant of marriage based on the value of the mutual love that they and their spouse agree to, can they not do so? Can it not be both, and?
To attempt to wipe out an institution older than time, based on gender parity, is to misunderstand the high ideal that God places on marriage, regarding trust, fidelity, companionship, generosity, faithfulness, humility, patience, and kindness, amongst others. It is popular to separate the pleasure of sex, from the emotions of the psychological connection to, or dare I say, violation (sex without consent), that comes from sex. Letting your inhibitions go, to derive the maximum pleasure you can seek from sex, is seen as an antidote to the everyday, with casual sex simply about you having an appetite for it. This is not what marriage is about.
Sex is a vital part of marriage, yet from marriage, there is a security you can have with your spouse that transcends the sex act, because all the emotions listed earlier, are met in the union of making love, rather than simply having sex. When we commodify sex, or the body we want to have sex with, in favour of the relational attachment we derive psychologically from each sexual encounter with our spouse, we dehumanise the experience. Pleasure is such a transient pursuit, never repeating itself in quite the same way, while always elusive when we try to attain meaning.
I have encountered many people of all sexual preferences and none. People choosing to be celibate, and those living in an open relationship. Those in same sex relationships, those in transgender relationships and those in heterosexual relationships. What they all want, as do I, is to be in a relationship where there is mutual respect and honour. That as we each go about our lives, we derive the maximum from the relationship so that when we are preoccupied whilst working on our own tasks, detached from our partners work, we have security in the knowledge that each of us have a sense of belonging to, and being part of something more than themselves. And when we come back together, there is a shared sense of longing to know how well the other had fared, to provide shelter and support, and to desire the absolute best for their welfare.
This is what marriage looks like. It is far greater than gender politics and sexual ethics. Yes, for Christian’s, God does put boundaries in place regarding the nature of our relationships but here is the rub. God knows that his highest ideal for marriage is not attainable by all (Even though paradoxically, he desires that to be the case). When any of the elements I have described for marriage is missing, the ideals placed within the covenant start to crumble. As soon as you choose to look outside of your marriage for comfort elsewhere, you will unravel the fabric of the trust and respect that binds that covenant together. Thank God for his good grace. He knows that marriage can be difficult, and for some who enter marriage in good faith, find their hope in it dashed. In the Christian worldview, we have Jesus who came to forgive us for the mistakes we have made, seeking not to condemn, but to set us free.
As much as God would want us to live lives according to his precepts, there is recognition that we will get it wrong, we will make mistakes, and we will need to be restored again and again, both emotionally and psychologically. That does not mean that the ideals of marriage need to be watered down, or our expectations of each other’s commitment to it, reduced. Christian’s are not immune to failings regarding many common human vices, even though they might project the impression that there is a level of perfection in their lives that makes them immune from such transient behaviours. Yet sex, drugs, alcohol, and addiction, all to easily, become short-term fixes to cure deep seated pain. These failings are what draws us to Jesus in the first place. He has an ocean of grace, ready to immerse us in, and he wants to drown us with his compassion, such is his love for us.
Whilst engaging in the arguments surrounding the human condition, ethics, and morality, are beneficial to the revision of our contemporary opinions about these matters, there is a need for an objective view of the issues, rather than one that is subjected to the individualism and yearning of one faction. In the trend amongst woke culture, there seems to be an element which seeks to condemn those who are not on-board with the ideal being pushed forward. Just as there is a need for grace within the debate over gender politics and sexual ethics, there is also a need for a more merciful approach regarding those caught up in the administration of the status quo, regarding racial equality. Each party seems to be condemned for condemnations sake, even when restitution is offered.
The danger here is in becoming trapped in a circular argument where we use our experiences to determine what we believe to be true. When we find that our experiences are shared with others, we align ourselves to the common denominator that runs through the narrative. This allows us to affirm our status as the one who is oppressed, and to identify the nature of the oppressor. In so doing, the discussion can default to soundbite and rhetoric, rather than reasoned enquiry, where the most dominant participant in the discussion rises to become the representative of the movement to expose the oppressor. Without examining the truth of the intent behind the actions, it is hard to make a judgement on whether what is claimed as truth, is indeed, truthful.
In this process, the protagonists, in their zeal for change, are becoming like those they wish to dethrone. The very idea that theirs is the only true expression of the issues involved, polarises the views of others, and sets up animosity amongst those open for change. Indeed, the church has been campaigning for the issues for racial equality for millennia, seeking forgiveness where fault is exposed and to pursue reconciliation for its part in it. Jesus calls each of us to ‘love your enemy as yourself.’ (Matthew 5:43-49), perhaps in anticipation that each believer would learn that they too, have aspects to their character that needs to be refined. This in turn, grows grace in the heart of the believer because in our original state, we are not worthy of God’s love, yet Jesus still loves us.
At the centre of the Christian story is Jesus. He gave his life for such a time as this. "When we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive our sin, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Jesus was a radical missionary with a heart for the lives of the people he came to set free. He ate with, spent time with, and joined in with the lives of those who needed him the most. Jesus’s understanding of the lives of the people around him was not simply built on an observation of the injustice they experienced because of the Roman occupation, nor was it based on his observation of the religious bigotry of the age, rather, it came from a deep understanding of the objective duty for which God had commissioned him. In working out these duties, Jesus healed the sick, the blind had their sight restored, the lame could walk, the epileptic fitted no more, the women with menstrual complications could lead a healthy life, the demon possessed would be set free, and the dead would be given life.
Without God’s involvement in the human story, the issues we quite rightly champion today, can become subjective. We must determine whether the discrimination we experience in our lives was intentional, and whether those carrying out an action, which led to the offending behaviour, had foreseen the consequences of it? In law, it cannot be assumed that this was the case. Throughout history, men and women have risen to the occasion when a champion was needed. Rallying to the cause of the weak, the alien, the slave, and the outcast, is something that comes from the heart of God. He calls each of us to become champions in our fields of influence, whether you are a Covid-19 emergency nurse, care worker in a nursing home, a teacher, or a member of the police.
Those of you who seek to bring about radical change in your community are each doing God’s work, whether you are a person of faith, or none. Jesus came to set the captives free. He has given us his instructions to love our neighbour as we would love ourselves, and he has equipped each of us with the Holy Spirit, to discern what is truth and what is untruth… and to know what is good, and honourable, from what is divisive and unloving. Whether you are campaigning for sexual, racial, or gender equality, or search for justice and fairness and the inclusion of all, God is for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment