What Makes Me Angry (1999)

This is an article I wrote in January 1999...

This evening I got quite angry. Let me explain why.

The Aztecs used to have a sacrificial system where they sacrificed people. They believed that when the sun went down, it was dying and it needed human life to be given to it to help it rise again the next morning, and so as sundown approached, the priests would tear the still beating hearts out of people's chests and hold them up to the sun. A lot of those who were sacrificed were slaves or criminals - it was, among other things, their version of the death penalty. Pretty grim, you might think. But it wasn't that that made me angry this evening. In fact, I don't think that has ever made me very angry. For one thing, it was a long time ago and for another the Aztecs got what they deserved (not to say that those who gave it to them didn't deserve as bad of course). Also, when I found that useful fact out from a book, I was at the age where I thought it was fairly cool.

In the Bible, God's people rebel against him many times. On one occasion, they rebel against him so consistently and badly that he kicks them out of the Promised Land. This is what God says:

The people of Israel and Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth; indeed, the people of Israel have done nothing but provoke me with what their hands have made, declares the LORD. From the day it was built until now, this city has so aroused my anger and wrath that I must remove it from my sight. The people of Israel and Judah have provoked me by all the evil they have done--they, their kings and officials, their priests and prophets, the men of Judah and the people of Jerusalem. They turned their backs to me and not their faces; though I taught them again and again, they would not listen or respond to discipline. They set up their abominable idols in the house that bears my Name and defiled it. They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.
Jeremiah 32:30-35, NIV

Human sacrifice, in this case the sacrificing of children to Molech, is the lowest of the low in terms of rebellion against God. It is even worse in this case because it it God's own people doing it. That is why God's message through Jeremiah was firstly (chapters 1-28) one of judgement on his own people.

Maybe you now see what I'm getting at. But I'll change the angle of approach slightly.

British law says that if a pregnant woman is shot and the fetus dies as a result, but the woman survives, then the gunman is responsible for manslaughter (accidental homicide) at the least. If it can be shown that he was aiming to kill the baby, then it's murder (deliberate homicide). I don't know many people who would think that an unreasonable judgement, though they would argue over the sentence.

Paradoxically though, if the man is a doctor then he can not only get away with but also be legally paid, by the government for the same action (terminating the fetus). If he has the consent of the mother, then it is approved of. If not but he thinks he should do so anyway, then it is still not treated as homicide.

This evening I sung a song which I had sung before and made me quite angry. It can be found here. I've not reprinted it here for copyright reasons.

The song picks up that abortion is effectively sacrificing children "on the altars of our gods" - i.e. we are putting our own convenience or health before the lives of those fetuses. Note I write "we". And our gods are ourselves. As has been said (to mean something different) "God created man in his own image. Now man is repaying the compliment." Over five million fetuses have been aborted under the NHS. That's about 9% of the population of Great Britain. I doubt even the Aztecs managed that many. And that's why I was angry.

But the last verse of the hymn points the way forwards, as do the next verses in Jeremiah, which refer to God restoring his people after judgement and repentance. We need, individually and as a country, to recognise what abortion is, and then to move on, to apologise to God and receive his forgiveness. Until that time, we remain under God's judgement.

Political Thoughts

I honestly can't see how anyone can think abortion is wrong and not also think that it is one of the most important political issues in the country today. To vote for parties on grounds of how they treat the comparatively poor (for example) ignoring how likely they are to reduce the number of abortions seems like voting for the Nazis because they were good at law and order.

The question came up today about whether the government should pay for treatment for self-inflicted illnesses (such as smoking-related diseases, obesity, self-harm, parachuting injuries). My opinion is that there should be a compulsory healthcare insurance, the premium for which is dependent upon lifestyle factors but not on genetic factors (including gender, race, etc). Some basic level could be paid for out of general taxation to ensure that the poorest are provided for. So basically it comes out as an NHS which doesn't provide for lifestyle-linked stuff except in emergencies, but where insurance e.g. for riding a bike is readily available (thought it might of course require wearing a helmet). [ETA - I'm going off this idea; see comments. But I stand by the first one.]

Amazing Grace

I watched Amazing Grace last night. Great film.

Right, now who is going to do that for abortion?

The Island (with spoilers)

It's fashionable to hate Michael Bay films...

This one really has a lot of promise though. The idea of an allegedly post-apocalyptic Brave New World scenario where the people don't realise that actually they only exist as clones to be sources of spare organs for rich members of "normal" society is a very clever one. But the big twist is spoiled. There isn't a "Soylent Green" moment - the viewer gets to see the adults being taught to read and being grown in pods as adults before the protagonist works it out. In addition, the idea of a horribly contaminated world with one island untouched by pollution just doesn't work, and people "educated to the level of a 15 year old" (as the clones are claimed to be) should be able to realise that fairly easily.

Further suspense is also ruined by product placement. The examples of product placement don't get destroyed or burst into flames. The cars, etc which are conspicuous by their lack of brand do. And when one of the twists revolves around a character turning good, it seems a shame to have an actor who only ever plays strong good guys (Djimon Honsou) in the role.

Oh yes, and why do all the internal walls rely on holographic projection to look nice? Wouldn't it be much easier to do it properly?

Nice idea, decent acting (even though Ewan MacGregor's accent wanders a little), the micro direction stuff is fine but someone really needed to think more about how the film keeps going from the viewer's perspective.

Psalm 92 and Rejoicing in the Death of Sinners

I was at a church last night, which I'm not going to name. Unusually, they had an ordinand (like me) preaching, but not from my college. He was speaking from Psalm 92 and some of what he said was good and helpful, but other bits weren't.

His main points were:

• we should be glad because of God's works (v1-5)
• we should be glad because of God's victory (v6-11)
• we should be glad because of God's blessing (v12-15)

Nothing wrong with that. Being glad because of God's works was especially well handled. Yes, chunks of it were lifted from Piper's discussion of CS Lewis, but there's nothing wrong with that once in a while.

What annoyed (and surprised) me was one of his applications of the second point. The Psalm is rejoicing in the future destruction of the wicked who oppose both God and the royal/priestly Psalmist. One of the ways the preacher applied that was to our response to people who sleep around - essentially implying that we should respond by rejoicing in their future destruction!

Now to my mind, that isn't even Christian. Yes, the guy is probably a Christian and didn't mean to say that or got mixed up or something, but it's an outrageous thing to say. Much much much better to see ourselves as naturally God's enemies (which he didn't mention) and recipients of God's blessing only by grace. Thankfully, the service leader drew it back that way afterwards.

If we're going to apply passages like that to "enemies" today, it should be enemies who oppose God's people and God. But I don't think applying it even to Richard Dawkins works. We shouldn't rejoice in his future destruction.

God does not delight in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should turn from their wickedness and live.
Book of Common Prayer

So how should we apply it? The obvious answer is to our spiritual enemies. After all, our struggle is not against flesh and blood...

And then I got thinking. There are quite a few examples in the Old Testament of rejoicing in God's judgement on the wicked, but it's not something I feel inclined to - I would much rather that they repent, and considering the fate of those who don't know Jesus moves me towards tears rather than anywhere else. I wish I could say it moved me to tears more often - it certainly moved Jesus there.

I can't think of a single example of rejoicing in the death of the unrepentant wicked in the New Testament. There are examples of rejoicing in the defeat of the devil, even in the downfall of institutions and authorities that set themselves up against God, but not in individual sinners.

But I can't see why that should change between the Old and New Testaments. In both, our salvation is by grace and our response to wickedness should be "there but for the grace of God go I". Is it an effect of the way that the covenant becomes internal rather than external? Is it because the priestly and kingly roles are subsumed in Christ, so that in a sense he is the only Annointed One? Is it because it is even clearer that salvation (past, present and future) is by grace? Any bright ideas?

John Piper on the American Bridge Collapse

John Piper works fairly near where that bridge thing collapsed in the US the other week. This is part of his response to it.

I guess what strikes me most is the importance of being clear that it is our own sin that is offensive and pointing the finger at ourselves.

( page on John Piper's site)

Humility in Action

I'm back from camp now.

One of the most encouraging things was that a "big-name" (for the UK conservative evangelical scene) speaker was on camp. He was doing the cooking and serving food to hungry kids, because that was what he wanted to do. He made sure that he ate after serving them seconds. He'd probably not want me to name him, so I won't, but I found it a great encouragement to see that kind of humility and willingness to serve.

Orthodox Jews and Tobogganing

I've been to the toboggan run on the Great Orme (in Llandudno) three times this week. And every time there has been an Orthodox Jewish family there with small children. Different family every time, but odd. Is there a big Orthodox Jewish family convention thing, with one family selected by raffle to go there each day? Is there an Orthodox Jewish family magazine which strongly recommended the toboggan run on the Great Orme as a good family activity? Is it some sinister Zionist conspiracy?

I should add that I have nothing against Orthodox Jews - it's just easier to notice them than it is off-duty waitresses. And there's a comparatively small number of them in the UK, so it's surprising to see them there so frequently.

Oh, and every time I've been there, there have been evangelical Christians in their 20s there too accompanying kids, but that's less of a coincidence...

In faithfulness...

I was thinking about this verse today...

in faithfulness you have afflicted me
Psalm 119:75b, NIV

It's amazing - there's so much in there and so much of it runs so counter to the way we tend to think. But I'm tired and don't have time or energy to expand on that much at the moment.

Sunburn

It seems to me that there is a simple choice. We can choose more than one option.

• Get sunburn and a risk of skin cancer. (As I understand it, skin cancer is not causally dependent on sunburn, but they both depend on UV - sunburn via dehydration of skin cells near the surface and UV via mutation of the DNA in skin cells. Of course, it's possible that slightly dehydrated cells are more susceptible to mutation because their protective thingys aren't working as well - I'm not a biologist.)
• Rub in some concoction of all sorts of chemicals which almost certainly haven't been tested for long term effects of repeated exposure to human skin.
• Wear long sleeves and a decent hat.

Now, to me, the choice looks simple. But that might explain why I now have a sunburnt right ankle.