Category Archives: England

Brexit: What can we learn?

Posted on by
Reply

We recently witnessed a referendum in Britain. The question: Should Britain remain in the EU? Britains voted to leave.

Now, there are all sorts of arguments with regard to trade and the economy etc that have been raised and continue to be raised. Here, I am not concerned with these; rather, I am more concerned about the two very telling issues that need to be addressed.

  1. A Country Divided:

The most noticeable aspect of the this referendum was that it was a closely run thing. The end result was 52% to 48%. This I see as a major problem.

Whilst I firmly believe that, if we are to operate as a democracy, the majority vote must hold sway — My caveat is and always has been that democratic votes are only valid if God’s word does not speak to an issue — the reality is that sometimes that sadly lacking commodity of our day, wisdom, must be allowed to speak.

As a young man, I grew up in a congregation that was deeply divided. At one point, the call of a new minister saw a number of votes taken that were passed by a mere few percent. Those who won crowed, but the living reality is that the congregation in question is today a mere shadow of its former self and it is struggling for survival.

Such close numbers means that there is going to be a divide and that divide will be exploited for all kinds of reasons. In fact, we have already begun to see this process. In 2014 the Scots held a referendum as to whether or not they should remain as part of Britain. The decision was that Scotland should stay. Now, as a result of the Brexit referendum, the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is threatening to use this vote as an excuse to leave the UK.

This is little more than political expediency, exploitation, and prostitution at its worst. Of course, you will be flabbergasted to learn that the First Minister has always been a supporter of Scottish independence! So, what we have, in reality, is one situation being exploited to gain a desired outcome that was not achieved via a referendum. The obvious question then becomes, “Given this division, who else will seek to exploit it?”

Hence, maybe it would be wiser and thereby in the better interest of the nation for those in power to cease crowing and “pushing their own barrows” and set about looking after their people. The result cannot be undone, but wisdom and compassion can be applied to the implementation of the result.

2. The Death of Democracy:

Flowing on from our first major illustration, we are led to the conclusion that democracy is in its death throws the world over. Politicians talk this language, but their seething detestation at certain results belies the fact that they are angry that their agenda has been derailed.

Whilst it is true, for example, that Scotland’s remain vote was 62%, the reality is that Scotland was not voting in and for itself. Scotland was voting as part of the UK and it is that overall vote that counts.

To put this in context, here in Australia, in regard to Federal politics, Labor hardly wins a seat in Western Australia. Would this mean that a victorious Federal Labor government would expect the Western Australians to vote to leave the Commonwealth. Of course not. The vote is known to be that of all States and Territories.

Sadly, the posturing of the Scottish First Minister, shows all too clearly that modern politicians do not respect the will of the people in these so-called democratic nations and that they will use democratic results to enforce their personal agendas. Such truths are made manifest by the attitude of many in the EU who did not rejoice that a democratic result had been achieved and respected in the UK.

To this we could add the resignation of British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Whether or not he wanted to remain in the EU means absolutely nothing. The point is simple: The people were given a voice and they spoke. To resign and thereby hand over any future difficulties to another is to act as the spoiled brat who, using a combination of metaphors, throws his lollies on the floor the takes his bat and ball and heads home!

I believe the appropriate descriptor for this attitude would be “Tyranny”!

Losing my Religion

Posted on by
Reply

In 1991, R.E.M. released their song, Losing my Religion. Twenty years later today’s news carried the headline, Britons become less religious.[1] Spooky. Were R.E.M. prophets in disguise?

I doubt it. This Thomical attitude is based on many reasons; chief of these is the fact that one cannot lose their religion. A person may change his religion, but it is a sheer impossibility to be areligious.[2]

Modern usage of the terms Secular and Religous have led us to the point of believing that the two terms are mutually exclusive. More exactly, the inference is that if you tend to the sacred or religious you believe in a God or god, more or less defined. If you are a secularist, then you do not believe in these things.

In today’s world, the definition is really driven further. To be religious is to be that poor, deluded soul who pursues myths. You are in need of a crutch on which to lean because the vicissitudes of life are threatening to overwhelm. The secularist is then viewed as the pinnacle of true humanity – the one who has gained the strength to stand without any crutch.

These definitions will be found in most dictionaries with all the implications noted. The problem is that the dictionaries are mostly inaccurate. When you look through the definitions, you will generally find a hint that religion is more than a belief in God or gods. The subtlety is usually there in phrases like, “a system of faith”[3] or “something of overwhelming importance to a person”.[4]

Thus, when the clutter is removed, we see that to have a religion is to have a set of beliefs that govern how we live. A person may be irreligious but he can never be areligious. It is simply not possible for a person to function without a basic set of beliefs. Therefore, It is inconsequential, at this point, to argue over who determines one’s beliefs. The critical issue is that everyman has a worldview – a set of essential beliefs by which he lives. Call it religion; call it secularism; call it what you will; all men have a fundamental worldview.

Support for this is gained from looking at a thesaurus. One such item lists the following as equivalents for religion: belief, creed, cult, denomination, faith, sect.[5]

This is where we encounter the conundrum and confusion. This same dictionary, under the heading of secular, states: “of worldly affairs, not of spiritual or religious matters.” When we put these two sets of data together the problem should be apparent. To be a secularist is to be someone who is faithless, creedless, and beliefless.

If this were the case, the secularists would all be the ultimate pacifists. They would sit quietly in the corner and say nothing for they would not have anything to say even if they were prompted to speak. Having no creed or belief they would have no principle on which to base statement or opinion.

As we know, secularists are not generally like this. On the contrary, they are vociferous in voicing their opinions and telling us how and by what standard we should live.

The same conundrum is highlighted in the Collins dictionary under the head secularism. There, we are told that this term means: “1. Philosophy – a doctrine that rejects religion, esp., in ethics. 2. The attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.”[6]

Note, please, the use of the word “doctrine”. Does not such a word have religious overtones? So, we are, in essence, being told to reject one set of doctrines in order to adopt a different set of doctrines. Throw out God’s doctrines; accept and operate on Man’s doctrines! Does that sound like a faithless, creedless, beliefless worldview to you?

How do we arrive at an ethical standpoint without a set of morals? How do we arrive at morals without a set of beliefs? It is completely impossible to have a set of ethics based on nothing. Even situational ethics or absolute subjectivism have some type of belief system that inform them. No man is born or operates within a vacuum.

Then we are told that religious attitudes should have no place in civil affairs – this after telling us to believe their doctrine!

Let’s cut to the chase here. What is the difference between an atheist and a secularist? Nothing. One is the application of the other. The person first denies God (atheism) and then tries to build a world without reference to God (secularism).

At this point, we are once more faced with the myth of neutrality. The moderns use terminology to imply that “the religious” are biased and they, the areligious, are unbiased, impartial, and neutral. Yet, as we have seen, their terminology is somewhat contradictory.

No man is born in a vacuum. No man is impartial. No man is unbiased. Every man has an outlook on life which can be termed as his religion. This outlook may change, but he can never be devoid of a basic world and life view.

Therefore, when we read that the “Britons are less religious” now, we need to understand what is really being said. Britons are not becoming theological marshmallows without belief, opinion, and conviction. Rather, they are changing their belief, opinion, and conviction.

A survey conducted in 1983 was compared to a recent survey. These are the results:

  1. The Church of England has declined from 40% to 20%.
  2. Non Christians tripled from 2% to 6%.
  3. Those with “no religion” has risen from 31% to 48%
  4. The Congregation of Rome has stayed steady at around 9%.

When these numbers are “crunched” what we see is that the 20% no longer represented by the C of A are represented as non-Christians (+4%) or those with no religion (+17%). What we witness is a shifting of camps, not and abandonment of belief, opinion, and conviction.

Equally, we should not be surprised at this shift. As the C of A has become increasingly Liberal – a supposed Christianity devoid of Saviour, miracle, and purpose – the congregants have realised that they can be the same person without the burden of an external framework and the demands of a formalised structure.

This denomination in England, like others here in Australia, has stopped preaching the truth. Instead, they have adopted a worldview that opposes God and robs God of His glory, wonder, and being. In the end, it is but a small step to alter the capitalisation of words. God becomes god and man becomes Man.

People do not give up on belief, opinion, and conviction; they simply go into business for themselves; open their own throne room; and begin governing for themselves. These have not lost their religion. They have simply established their own in opposition to God.

  • Proverbs 23:6 – For as he thinks within himself, so he is.
  • James 4:4 – You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
  • Proverbs 12:5 – The thoughts of the righteous are just, But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.
  • Psalm 10:4 – The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
  • Psalm 53:1-3 – The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; there is no one who does good. God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there is anyone who understands, who seeks after God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

[2] We use this term in its true sense of being without a religion. It is not a misspelling of irreligious.

[3] Little Oxford Dictionary, The Clarendon Press. 1986.

[4] Collins English Dictionary, Harper Collins; 4th Edition, 1998. Meaning 5. The example given is” Football is his religion.”

[5] Oxford Australian Essential Dictionary and Thesaurus, Oxford University Press; 2nd Edition ,2008.

[6] Collins: sv Secularism.