The apostasy of secular Britain

There was a story in the Daily Mail newspaper today about the Reverend Graeme Anderson who complained to the BBC about blasphemous comments presenter Jeremy Clarkson made during an episode of Top Gear. The BBC responded to his objections with derision by claiming that "there is no consensus about words that are acceptable." This is complete nonsense and proof that Christianity is institutionally discriminated against in the UK and treated with contempt. Freedom of expression, as defined by the Human Rights Act, carries with it responsibility for the protection of the reputation and rights of others. The Human Rights Acts stipulates: "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law...". In other words Freedom of expression exists within the framework of the Law. Currently British Law contains a Blasphemy Act, which the BBC website reports was amended in 1838 to protect the "tenets and beliefs of the Church of England". The Sixth Article of the Church of England states: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation...In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." The Third Commandment found in the book of Exodus chapter 20:7 says: "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." Yet the Blasphemy Law is violated without reproach and the Human Rights Act is even used to protect blasphemy in this country despite the fact that it is contrary to the regulations of the Act and the Law.

Moreover, other forms of discrimination are prosecuted and intolerated in this country. No-one condones racism, sexism, homophobia or Islamophobia with intent to cause religious or racial violence. There are numerous examples in the media where other forms of discrimination and 'isms' have been condemned. In January 2011 Football pundit Andy Grey was sacked from Sky Sports for sexist comments made about a lineswoman. In February 2011 a Pentecostal Christian couple lost their court case to remain in custody of their foster children after claiming they were discriminated against. The couple, Eunice and Owen Johns had their right to foster taken away on the grounds that they taught their foster children that homosexuality is morally wrong. Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson claimed the lawyer's claims were "a travesty of reality" and despite arguing that they were not asserting Christians or other religious adherents were unfit to foster children they did reinforce the secular nature of British society: "We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy." (source guardian.co.uk) I do not condone homophobia and do not believe homosexuals should be discriminated against because of their sexuality, rather I am citing this story as an example of how this nation does not tolerate homophobia. Sadly Christian rights in this country are trumped by secular rights every time. Increasingly in this country Christians are ridiculed and mocked for standing up for their faith as bigoted, prejudiced, anachronistic and foolishly out-dated.

The tragic irony to this prevailing attitude is that this country was built and founded on Christian values, the very values that British Law, society and the media now reject and feel at liberty to disrespect. Humanism as defined by the British Humanist Association: "trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and - a humanist - is therefore an atheist or agnostic)". It goes on to say that a humanist: "makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals". Secular, democratic law is based on a humanistic world view and implies that science and reason are the only sources of truth and morality. Yet this is contrary (and completely unjustifiable) to the history of Christian Britain in which Christian clergymen, philanthropists and politicians have campaigned for the betterment, improvement and protection of human life in all its forms. Christians such as William Wilberforce who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, Seebohm Rowntree who worked with Charles Booth in influencing government views on poverty through their poverty line map of London, George Dawson who created the 'Civic Gospel' of social activism and Thomas Barnardo who founded Barndardos children's charity. The legacy of these great men is being forgotten or at least their Christian faith and values are being overlooked in this country's ongoing desire to divorce itself from its Christian heritage.

How a civilized, democratic nation that strives for equality and the advancement of human rights could tolerate such ignorance towards a spiritual leader as beloved and followed as Jesus Christ is astonishing. Jesus' teaching on the Sermon on the Mount is one of the most famous writings in human history and has profoundly influenced Western Civilization. Other religious figures are revered and protected from the barbs and mockery of the media and yet Jesus is constantly caricatured, ridiculed and blasphemed. This is a travesty of decency and justice. Why is Christianity held in such disdain by society? I believe this is evidence of the spirit of anti-Christ found in the New Testament. Secular Britain in this post-enlightenment, post-modern age has apostatized its Christian faith and has committed idolatry with the idols of science and secularism. 

 

Cult of Personality

The historicity of Jesus is continually questioned by sceptics and opponents of the Gospels. Just today I had a very sincere student ask me questions about the reliability of the historical Jesus. Sometimes what appears at first to be logical can in fact be flawed when you take into account all the variables and evidence. “If Mary was pregnant with Jesus before she married Joseph, then couldn’t they just have made up he was the Son of God to hide the fact they were breaking their society’s laws?” This is a perfectly reasonable assumption naturalistically speaking. Mary becomes pregnant before she marries her fiancé therefore they must have been having sexual intercourse. However, if Jesus’ birth was purely natural than how do you explain his miracles or the crucifixion?

How do you explain the calming of the storm or the feeding of the five and four thousand respectively? Yes people were more religious and superstitious in general than today but that kind of power over nature cannot be manufactured. It either happened or it didn’t. People were either eye witnesses to it or they weren’t. You cannot trick five thousand people into believing you supernaturally multiplied a tiny amount of food and still had food left over after the miracle took place and people had eaten their fill; that is no mere illusion. Jesus travelled from region to region so the people whom he healed would all have been known locally. These were people who were physically handicapped whose disability would have been common knowledge. These were not people Jesus surreptitiously planted in the crowd in order to con the people into believing he was divine. Moreover, Jesus’ moral teaching on the Torah as found in the Sermon on the Mount as well as his teaching on love proves Jesus to be a man of very high moral character contrary to this notion of Jesus being a sophisticated con-man capable of deception.

Secondly, if Jesus was not truly the Son of God then why would Mary and Joseph convince their child he was somebody he was not whilst blatantly distorting the prevailing belief in Jewish society that the messiah would be a warrior king who would liberate them from political oppression to the Roman Empire? If Mary and Joseph maintained the lie in order to protect their reputations that Jesus’ birth was divine then why did Jesus go to the Cross? There was a consensus of scholarly opinion at this time that the Messiah would be a valiant, righteous warrior king after the nature of David, the warrior king of Israel who God made a covenant with promising to keep a descendant on his throne forever. But Jesus was not a warrior king, as evidenced by the unilateral rejection of Jesus’ messianic claim by the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Jewish authorities rather than embracing Jesus as their long foretold messiah saviour misconstrued his teaching as blasphemous and campaigned for his crucifixion. So Jesus did not fit the archetype of the expected messiah.

Jesus’ miracles and the cross can only be explained by Jesus’ divinity and identity as the incarnate Son of God. The Immaculate Conception explains Jesus’ ability to perform powerful miracles and his crucifixion. Jesus chose to die – he chose the path of suffering and sacrifice because he knew who he was: he was the Son of God incarnated to atone for the sins of the world. Jesus’ life was mission led; it was purposeful. Jesus led a purpose driven life that ultimately was focussed on the cross and his ministry led him directly to it.

Retrospectively, the resurrection vindicates Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and long awaited messiah. Alongside the Immaculate Conception as the best explanation of Jesus’ extraordinary life and ministry, his resurrection after the crucifixion proves that the historical Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels is one and the same person. If Jesus were not resurrected there would be no Christianity today. If his disciples out of grief or a stubborn refusal to embrace reality, decided to fabricate his resurrection then the Jewish authorities (with a great degree of glee) would have been able to prove them wrong as his burial tomb would have been intact with the decomposing body still inside. Notwithstanding the evidence that would undeniably have been there to counter the disciples’ claims as fraudulent, the disciples themselves had no reason to concoct the resurrection. Jesus’ ministry had been peaceful and non-militant. Jesus had not led an insurrection against the Roman authorities; he did not call his followers to arms. That was not Jesus’ cause and neither was it the cause of his disciples. Instead, the disciples were grief stricken and disillusioned. They hid themselves away behind locked doors in fear of the public. For three years they had openly and publically associated themselves with a man who had just been executed for treason and blasphemy. They were afraid and leaderless.

No, if Jesus was not raised from the dead then there is no logical explanation for the disciples’ evangelism or for further Jewish suppression of the early church. Christianity would have become a footnote in Jewish history as a personality cult of an influential travelling rabbi known as Jesus, which ended in tragedy and disgrace. The resurrection is proof of Jesus’ deity and his subsequent earthly life, Immaculate Conception included. The Gospels therefore make the most logical sense of the rise of the early church, the ubiquity of Christianity and the worship of a man who utterly redefined and transformed the Jewish perception of the Messiah.