Someone is always watching

I recently discovered that less than half of speculative telephone sales calls are blocked by the UK’s Telephone Preference Service. I have had to pay £30 to a commercial company to hopefully block the rest. Paying to preserve privacy seems harsh.

The issue or privacy is never far from the surface. In November 2013 Britain’s three security agency chiefs appeared before a Commons Select Committee to explain their wish to monitor and store email and phone traffic. In the summer of 2014 the UK government rushed through a bill to allow police and security services to continue to access data as to who calls or emails who and when (but not the content of those messages) as part of the armoury against terrorism.

Protests against such “a snooper’s charter” are loud but the need is strongly defended by security experts. “I always felt uncomfortable eavesdropping on private phone conversations or covertly watching people at home,” a former Chair of the Cobra intelligence group has said. “We never did it lightly,” he added, and concluded that to deny security services “the ability to match the technological advances of the criminals and terrorists they are up against is like allowing detectives fingerprint technology but forbidding them DNA. It is to condemn our security services to fight the last war.” ¹

In fact they don’t have the resources to do more than track a small number of people who are known to be a potential threat and have to ignore the billions of innocent messages flashing around the world every day. (Although there has been a more worrying “Big Brother” pilot scheme in China in which citizens of one city were individually trackable.²)

But as the co-founder of the Carphone Warehouse, Sir Charles Dunstone, has said, our anxiety is very selective. Large companies know more about us than we realise. “Everyone is up in arms about GCHQ looking in emails to see if someone is saying ‘semtex’ and ‘jihad’, but they are completely relaxed that Google reads all their emails and tries to sell them stuff based on the words they put in them.”³ To say nothing of the personal data about our tastes and finances that is collected and shared through store loyalty cards and finance institutions.  

There’s another inconsistency, too, in that many people choose to waive their privacy in reality TV shows, in films posted on YouTube and revelations written on Facebook and Twitter. Balanced against the human desire for privacy is a desire to be noticed by the world. Of course, we have some control over what we reveal voluntarily, but the exhibitionist or opinionated tendency seems often to outweigh common sense and personal decorum.

Like many, I personally dislike cold sales calls and spam email and targeted marketing which use social and commercial data to reach me. In many ways it’s more invidious than surveillance for security purposes yet rarely attracts similar opprobrium. We learn to ignore it as best we can, just as we rarely notice the ubiquitous security cameras on every street corner, the proven benefits of which are statistically very small.

Biblical angles on privacy

The debate sent me, as any debate does, back to the principles enshrined in the Bible which should at least inform (if not determine) a Christian response to a problem that obviously didn’t exist in the same way in the ancient world. And three things stand out.

First, individualism. While the Bible recognises that each person is accountable for their own actions, it knows nothing of the intense individualism of western society today. Herded as we are into close urban and suburban environments, we jealously guard our individuality against the impersonal nature of a mass society and react strongly to intrusion into our private space; I am a man not a number. Biblically, however, the emphasis is much more on the individual as a responsible and active member of a group (village, tribe) which itself is part of the wider community. It is the interests of the community that take priority and personal interest and conduct is subservient to them.

Secondly, fear. There is a strong climate of fear and suspicion within western society. We are anxious that others will harm us in some way. We suspect their motives. We no longer welcome strangers and “entertain angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). It stems from a variety of causes but it reinforces our efforts to protect our own interests and to build a protective shell around us. Of course on rare occasions a corrupt person might take advantage of information about us, but that is not a reason to trust no-one but ourselves.

Thirdly, God. We can’t hide anything from God. The story of Adam and Eve kicks off a Bible-long theme that in the spiritual realm there is no privacy. God misses nothing. That’s not intended (generally) to instil fear although it can do when we consciously disobey basic commandments; rather it is a message of loving care. He watches, because he cares; he grieves when we go astray; he applauds our puny efforts to serve him and the world.

For me, meditating on that puts the current debate into a much wider perspective. I become more concerned about what God sees than what some human database records. Yes, Scripture warns us not to take advantage of each other, and some data gathering in the commercial world seems close to doing that and should rightly arouse social concern. But it also tells me not to fear what people might (and equally might not) do to me personally, because there is a bigger picture and a greater concern to focus on.

Think and talk

1.  Discuss the extent of both individualism and fear in your society, and how it affects our attitudes to other people, to government and to institutions.

2.  See how secrecy can’t exist in the spiritual realm: Psalm 90:8; Psalm 121; Psalm 139; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24. What comfort, encouragement and challenge do these passages bring?
3.  There are promises that at the end of time that all will be revealed. How do you feel about that? Luke 8:17; Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 14:25; Revelation 20:12.
4.  What effect might such awareness have on our lives? 2 Corinthians 4:2; Ephesians 4:17-5:2

References

1.  Colonel Richard Kemp, The Times, 7 April 2012.
2. See David Landrum, “From Big Brother to Big Society?”, The Bible in Transmission, Bible Society, Summer 2010.
3.  Interview in The Times, 30 November 2013

Why did he do it?

Crosses on the hill outside Lee Abbey, Devon

OK, it’s past Easter and I’m late in terms of topicality – except that the question as to why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus is always topical. Because people do it, or something similar, every day. We (which I prefer to “they” because none is totally exempt) betray our own principles, we turn against people who were once colleagues or friends, we do or say things behind people’s backs we would not repeat in front of them.

As Oscar Wilde once put it, “Yet each man kills the thing he loves, / By each let this be heard, / Some do it with a bitter look, / Some with a flattering word. / The coward does it with a kiss, / The brave man with a sword!”¹ 

The reasons, though, are usually complex. Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo admits that “Human behaviour is complex, so there is often more than one reason for any given act.” He notes that “Just when you think you understand someone you know only the smallest slice of their inner nature derived from a limited set of personal or mediated contacts.”² So with Judas; the reasons for his actions were probably complex. But let’s examine the usual theories.

MICE and the man

The FBI has an acronym for the most common reasons for betrayal: MICE. It stands for Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego. We can see if any apply to Judas.

Money: He was paid for his information (Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 22:1-5). He was also said (after the event) to have had his hand in the till – he stole from the disciples’ common funds (John 12:4-6). So he might have been greedy, or in debt, or he just bent the rules: they’ll never know, never miss it.

Although the money motive has been the traditional allegation against Judas, it doesn’t totally add up. Although Matthew says he asked the authorities for something, it was more likely a token sum to seal the deal rather than (say) a hard-up man seeking to pay off his gambling debts; it wasn’t a huge amount. Besides, he gave it back when Jesus was executed (Matthew 27:1-5); clearly his intention wasn’t Jesus’ death, nor just to line his pocket.

Ideology: There are two distinct possibilities which are often put forward as the most likely single reasons for Judas’s actions. One is that he had become disillusioned with Jesus. Perhaps he expected Jesus to lead an armed rebellion against the occupying Romans and had belatedly realised that Jesus wasn’t that kind of Messiah (the other disciples appear to have been under the same illusion even after the resurrection, Acts 1:6). Frustrated and angry, he turned against his friends. Anger can do that to a person, but again his reaction to the crucifixion suggests he was far from glad at the outcome of his action.

The other option is that he tried to force Jesus’ hand by engineering an encounter with the religious authorities. He was getting impatient, and felt that Jesus was pussyfooting around: he needed to declare his Messiahship and work with the authorities to bring about change. So what better way than a private audience with the High Priest? This too is unlikely on its own, not least because the authorities had been intransigent opponents of Jesus almost from the start of his ministry.

Compromise: This is rarely levelled at Judas. We have no evidence that he was blackmailed into his actions as a contemporary spy might be; if he was being so pressured, there would have been no reason to offer him money. There is also no suggestion that he was an “agent in place”, planted by the religious authorities to report back on Jesus’ movements. Judas was one of the original twelve disciples and there was no indication in the early days that Jesus would prove such a thorn in the authorities’ side that they needed to keep track of him.

Ego:  Now we’re getting closer, and again there are two but not mutually exclusive possibilities. The Bible is clear that “Satan entered Judas” (Luke 22:3) but also that whatever that meant, Judas was still responsible for his actions (Luke 22:22); he did not suddenly become a demented demoniac.

A more modern explanation (which does not exclude malign spiritual influence) is that he was a “driven man”. Driven by ambition, desire and perhaps much else, his view of the situation became blinkered and he blundered on regardless until it was too late to turn back.

Mixed up mindset

There may have been other factors involved, too, that are not always taken into account. For example, Judas’s surname “Iscariot” almost certainly suggests that he came from the southern village of Kerioth. Most if not all the other disciples were northerners. Judas would have talked differently, and had different values to the rest. Was he perhaps too conscious of his “outsider” status, was he teased by the others, however much in jest, and this led him to exert himself: “I’m as good as (or more knowledgable than) they are”? Did he in fact suffer from a sense of inferiority or superiority and a desire to prove himself that had a disastrous effect?

Perhaps the biggest failure of Judas was not stopping to consider that there might be unforeseen consequences of his actions. He could see only what he wanted to see. He could imagine no outcome but the one he wanted (whatever that was). He consulted no-one else on the apostolic team; so far as he was concerned, his judgement was right and all others’ wrong.

Driven by powerful emotions, yes; motivated by an inadequate or inaccurate understanding of Jesus’ mission, possibly. The process smoothed, perhaps, by the warm feeling of extra cash. But most certainly, he was in the same position as Michael Bettany, an MI5 officer who passed secrets to the Russians in the 1980s: “There was no simple motive. It was a cumulative process,” he told his interrogators.³

And therein lies the warning. Most betrayals, most falls from grace, follow an incremental course. They don’t suddenly happen. Personality, circumstances, other people all contribute to a hardening of attitude, a changing mind, a determination to act in a certain way. The real question is not why did the final act occur, but what were all the small steps that led up to it. Might they have been avoided?

“If only”. We’ve all said that. Probably Judas did too as he tied the noose on his improvised gibbet. There but for God’s grace go many people. The moral is donlt go too far, too quickly.

References

1  Oscar Wilde, The Ballad of Reading Gaol

2  Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect , Rider 2009, p.365, 167
3  Christopher Andrew, The defence of the realm, Allen Lane 2009, p. 720

Think and talk

1  We’re often quick to judge people, whether we know them personally or by repute. Look again at Philip Zimbardo’s comments in the third paragraph. How might observing the truth of his words modify the way we criticise or judge others?

2   How might Judas’s loose attitude to money have affected his judgement? What does that tell us about how we should view and use money?
3  Judas may have been blinkered in some way because of his set beliefs. Many of us have strong beliefs. How might we balance these with keeping an open mind?
4  When we become convinced that we should embark on a certain course of action, what should we do before taking the final irrevocable step? Whom should we consult?

 

Weather watch: we all can pray

In mid-February 2014 the UK seems to have woken up to the fact that the effects of ongoing extreme weather events amount to a national emergency and are not just a small local crisis. Floods and coastal storms have destroyed homes, devastated livelihoods, and decimated the infrastructure.

Those of us less affected watch the TV footage with a sense of helplessness. A few volunteers have travelled to assist with the rescue and rebuilding work. But there is no Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for funds; the government has promised its own funding although how adequate that is remains to be seen. So we can’t even donate cash.

But there is one thing everyone can do: pray. It sounds trivial, impractical. It’s certainly not meant to minimise the trauma experienced by many people. They deserve the wholehearted support, care – and prayer – of the rest of us.

There is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that prayer can make a difference. People facing difficulty who know that others are praying for them will sometimes say that they have felt carried through and supported in their crises. It’s something all can offer.

The good that prayer does

The Bible is clear that prayer does not immunise us against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Trouble can hit anyone, of faith or no faith. The weather is no respecter of persons. Nor does prayer offer an instant or easy way out of difficulty. It won’t dry soaked carpets or restore damaged railway tracks. So what good does it do?

Fundamentally, prayer seems to dredge the channels through which God’s Spirit flows to work in the world. In the current circumstances, this is what is needed. Victims need God’s help to keep going; agencies need God’s wisdom to tackle complex issues. There’s a prayer below if you find it hard to know quite what to say to God.

“Intercession is not a technique for changing God’s mind, but it is a releasing of power as we place ourselves in a relationship of co-operation with God…Prayer is action, because God’s energy is released into a situation. Prayer leads to action because we cannot with integrity pray for something which we are not also prepared to do something about.”¹ 

We’ll come back to that last sentence later. But prayer can have other effects too. It aligns us with God’s purposes and opens us to discover them more clearly; you can’t pray “your will be done” and then not respond to some fresh understanding of God’s will.

Prayer transfers our anxieties and concerns to one who is better placed to discern the wood from the trees. It makes us more receptive to his help as we negotiate the path ahead.

It is also an expression of our human frailty and limited abilities. We’re all control freaks at heart but we can’t control everything. Stuff happens. Confessing our weakness (especially in the face of the elements) can lead to a greater respect for, trust in, and dependence on, God. Currently, our corporate pride has been punctured. Spiritual health is often improved by a dose of humility.

And finally, we can ask God to bring an end to the battering. There are biblical examples of prayer related to weather extremes. He is, after all, the creator and sustainer of all that is. Part of that prayer, of course, is to seek forgiveness for the part the human race has played in exacerbating the fury of natural forces and our casual approach to minimising their effects.

A time to ask questions

Not “why does God allow suffering?” – it’s endemic in life as we now know it – but rather “is God trying to tell us something?” through recent events. You can’t link floods and tempest to specific actions, as one foolish politician tried to do by saying they’re God’s punishment for allowing gay marriage. He seems to have overlooked the fact that extreme weather events this winter have not been restricted to the UK; in January there was the polar vortex which crippled the US while intense heat suffocated Australia.

But you can link extreme weather to three wider actions. One is our unrelenting contribution to global warming which has been known for decades to disturb weather patterns and trigger extreme events. Governments have been tardy, to say the least, in committing to and legislating for a reduction in greenhouse gases.

Another is our management of land, especially as we pave over natural rainfall catchment areas so that there is greater or faster run-off into rivers. And a third is the short-termism of modern government which rarely looks beyond the next election, and of modern commerce which rarely looks beyond next year’s profits. Flood and coastal defences should have had, and indeed now must have, the sort of long-term investment that goes into (say) the armed forces whose government-sponsored selective sorties into foreign lands don’t always seem to be in the best interests of ordinary people.

But that too is a matter for prayer. “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may lead peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

A prayer

Almighty God, we bring to you those people whose lives, homes and jobs have been devastated by recent weather. We ask that you will help them not to lose heart, to keep faith, and to draw on the power and guidance of your Spirit as they deal with the aftermath. May they know even in their darkest moments that your love has not deserted them. Fill with compassion and wisdom those who are in a position to help: the staff of insurance companies, banks, shops and suppliers, the statutory and voluntary agencies, emergency services, military teams, commercial businesses, churches and community groups as they each lend resources and personnel to deal with the short term alleviation of suffering and the long-term rebuilding of homes, livelihoods, and infrastructures. Grant all of us a spirit of generosity and care, a willingness to give and not to count the cost, as we seek to serve you and your Kingdom by serving others who are in need. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.

Think and talk

1.  Just pray for people suffering from the latest calamities. Imagine yourself in their shoes and ask God to do what you would want in that situation. And pray for all the agencies and groups trying to help them: they need energy, stamina, wisdom and compassion.

2.  Look at the thoughts in “A time to ask questions” above. What can you do personally, and how should we be urging government to act, to deal with the long-term issues?

3.  Look at James 5:17,18; 1 Kings 8:35-40. We can pray for God to alter the weather. But what are the conditions for such prayer being responded to positively?

Reference

1.  Stephen Cottrell, Praying through life, Church House Publishing 2003, p.28

 

Global persecution is a fact of life

The narrow way of discipleship:
a gorge (chine) in the Isle of Wight

I am writing this at Epiphany (early January), which in the church calendar celebrates the first manifestation of Christ to non-Jews (the wise men who followed the star to the infant Jesus). It concludes a fascinating fortnight in the calendar. Because apart from Christmas day, a series of commemorations all focusing on suffering and death follow each other in quick succession.

December 26 remembers Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 6,7). The next day recalls John the apostle, exiled for his faith to the island of Patmos. Then on 28^th the Holy Innocents are recalled, the toddlers slaughtered by Herod in his quest to eliminate his supposed rival as king of the Jews. Epiphany comes on January 6, after which the wise men had to find a fresh route home to avoid the unwelcome attention of the paranoid Herod. There are some minor saints in between, including the reformer John Wycliffe (December 31) who didn’t suffer martyrdom but did incur strong opposition to his theological views.

Whether by accident or design, the ancient designation of saints’ days, drawn up long before Christmas became a three-month commercial fiesta, convey an important truth. They remind us that the baby in the manger “did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34) – not deliberately as an aggressor but by default as the purveyor of a radical message and lifestyle that would divide communities and invite hostility.

While there have been some well-reported court cases in which some Christians have alleged discrimination on the part of their employers (and all but one were dismissed by the courts), there are far more less-reported cases of real persecution seeping into public awareness.

In October 2013, The Spectator magazine published a lengthy article headed “The war on Christians” which quoted research showing that 11 Christians are “killed somewhere in the world every hour, seven days a week and 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith. In effect, the world is witnessing a rise of an entire new generation of Christian martyrs.”¹

And in December, Tony Baldry MP, who speaks in the House of Commons for the Church of England, said that “200 million Christians today are at threat of persecution, loss of their faith, livelihoods, homes and even their lives. This is not acceptable.”² While many of the attacks on individuals and churches are in the Middle East, Burma, Nigeria, North Korea, Congo, Eritrea, Indonesia, and Pakistan have all witnessed significant violent attacks on Christians in recent years. The Spectator article suggests discrimination against Christians in some form took place in 139 countries between 2006 and 2010.

There are two practical responses to this. One is that Christians who enjoy considerable freedom could be finding out about, praying for, and perhaps through various agencies supporting, their less fortunate brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. The other is to take seriously the Bible’s teaching about what Jesus called “the narrow path”, the sometimes lonely route of discipleship that may result in hardship and sacrifice. There are some Bible passages to study below.

Think and talk

1.  Some Christians have alleged persecution because they have been disciplined for (say) refusing to work on Sundays or remove a lapel cross from their work uniform. Other Christians, however, are content to take their turn on shifts and do not feel the need to advertise their faith with a badge. Discuss the principles that might apply to such situations, using such contrasting passages as Luke 9:23-26 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

2.  Read Paul’s catalogue of his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 6:3-10 and 11:22-33. Make separate lists of the voluntary sacrifices or consequential deprivations made for the sake of his mission, and the unsought aggression and persecution by opponents of his message. Then read again Luke 9:23-26 and also Matthew 7:13,14. What does discipleship inevitably involve? To what extent do you reflect more of your contemporaries’ non-Christian lifestyle than that envisaged by Christ?

3.  Jesus frequently warned his disciples that they would face persecution. Read, for example, Matthew 10:17-35 and 24:4-14. What are the causes of antagonism towards Christians? In what ways might we minimise these without compromising our faith?

4.  There are a number of agencies working with Christians who face hardship or opposition in various parts of the world. One is Christian Solidarity Worldwide (http://www.csw.org.uk/home.htm). Why not discover more about the suffering church, share the stories in a group and pray for both Christians and their oppressors? At the same time, think about the issues of religious freedom generally; we cannot ask for Christians what we are not prepared to offer to others.

References

1.  John Allen, “The war on Christians”, The Spectator 5 October 2013
2.  Reported on the BBC website, 3 December 2013

© Derek Williams 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mandela's Christmas wisdom on human relations

"Coexistence": poster for a peace exhibition I saw 
in Belfast some years ago

Whatever else he was and whatever else he did, the late Nelson Mandela proved to be a master of reconciliation. As the commemorations of his life now fade from the news agenda, it’s still appropriate to reflect on some of his words as we enter the Christmas season of peace and goodwill. Mandela offered peace and goodwill towards people who had opposed and imprisoned him.

In his autobiography Long walk to freedom¹ he writes of things he learned as a child. “I learned that to humiliate another person is to make him suffer an unnecessarily cruel fate,” he wrote. “Even as a boy I defeated my opponents without dishonouring them” (p10). Another lesson was gleaned from tribal meetings, where everyone had a say. “I have always endeavoured to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion” (p21).

Those principles – honour your enemy and listen to those you disagree with – were the foundation of his much later work as the first black President of South Africa. So, with good cause, perhaps, to want to wreak revenge on others, he emerged from prison knowing that his freedom did not give him the liberty to take others’ freedom away from them, and that “the man who takes away another’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness” (p617).

“In prison, my hatred towards whites decreased, while my hatred for the system grew. I wanted South Africa to see that I loved my enemies even while I hated the system that turned us against each other” (p559). And writing of the then President De Klerk, who he had previously criticised heavily, “I never sought to undermine Mr De Klerk…To make peace with an enemy, one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes your partner” (p604).

Nelson Mandela has given us a lot to think about as we reflect on our relationships with and attitudes towards others. But he was doing no more than applying in practice what Jesus had taught almost 2000 years before.

In the sermon on the mount Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-48).

That teaching is echoed by the apostles. “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse….Do not repay anyone evil for evil….As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay'….Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’’ (Romans 12:14-21).

But there’s an even greater reason to take the example of Mandela and the exhortations of Jesus and Paul seriously. It is that reconciliation is what God himself is all about, which is also at the heart of the Christmas message. Paul writes, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” And, he adds, he “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).

The Christmas image of the baby in the manger can sometimes obscure the fact that the Christ child came into the world with a mission to bridge the moral gap between erring humans and a perfect God. Perhaps Mandela’s death just before Christmas could be seen as God’s gentle reminder to a conflict-ridden world that the event we celebrate contains a call to adopt a peace-making lifestyle all year round.

 

Think and talk

1.  Look up the full Bible passages from which the passages above are quoted. Make a list of all the implications they have for the daily life and relationships of ordinary people.
2.  Think of situations where you either need to seek reconciliation with others or where you can seek to act as a peacemaker (Matthew 5:9). Make these situations a matter for prayer, and then look for opportunities to exercise a ministry of reconciliation.

Reference

1.  Nelson Mandela, Long walk to Freedom, Little, Brown and Company, 1994

 

 

God and the biblical slaughters

WW1 training trench unearthed in Sherwood Forest;
a reminder of modern slaughters

There has been a long gap in these reflective blogs partly because in preparing this one I found two books – one with 800 pages – which helped my thinking and delayed my writing. They feature later. An early draft was also much longer; this is necessarily a summary.

How the critics see it
Broadcaster and comedian Marcus Brigstock has said, “For me, that God [in the Old Testament] is a barbaric, inconsistent, jealous and murderous entity.”¹ Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins wrote, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser.”² 
 
You can see their point in passages such as “Do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you” (Deuteronomy 20:16f). So, as two conservative scholars write: “We have a deep problem to grapple with”³ to which “there is no easy or simple solution”.⁴ Some explain the slaughters away as fiction and propaganda (the archaeological evidence for them is thin), but the attribution of them to God’s initiative remains. There may be better, if harder, ways to approach the problem while also acknowledging the historical framework of the Israelites’ invasion of Canaan.

The historical context
From 2000BC onwards the near east was a permanent war zone. Independent tribes vied for scarce living space, water and pasture. Immigrants were brutally repelled. Given that the loose confederation of 12 Israelite tribes were returning to the homeland of their patriarch Abraham, they had little choice but to fight their way in. It was kill or be killed. It is hard to see how they could otherwise have become a (relatively) cohesive community there.

How many they killed is debatable. The bald figures suggest about 100,000⁵ but no-one is entirely sure how large numbers were calculated centuries before Greek scholars got to grips with maths. As archaeology suggests that the population was smaller than the figures given in the Bible, the extent of the slaughter may be similarly exaggerated. That doesn’t, of course, justify any, but it may suggest that we’re not looking at such large-scale genocide.
 
Then there was a mental outlook we find impossible to identify with today. All peoples at the time believed that God (or, in most cases, the gods) determined the fortunes of the tribe which paid its religious dues. The Israelites were no different. Success was seen as divine favour; failure as divine disapproval. It was fatalism: what is, is what God decrees. The Israelites were immersed in their contemporary and brutal culture. God is a craftsman who can make silk purses out of sows’ ears. The raw material he began with was raw indeed.

The theological context
The OT isn’t primarily a history book; it’s a religious book. It contains a selective account of key incidents in the Israelite story but its primary message is that there is one God (most other tribes believed in multiple gods) who is “holy” (that is, he expects disciplined human lives not selfish indulgence). It traces the development of the Israelites’ theological understanding as it changed over time. This is crucial. God did not impose on or reveal to the early Israelites principles which were later explained by the prophets, Jesus and the apostles, just as he never imposes himself on people unwilling to believe or behave.
Conservative scholar Leon Morris wrote, “There is progression in the Bible. Earlier revelation is filled out by later. We must not expect to find the full revelation at the earlier time.” He refers to John Stott’s example of an artist’s preliminary sketch: “The sketch is not the final shape. But it is adequate at the stage at which it is produced.”⁶

This may be a matter for regret to us but it is consistent with the way in which God deals with individual people oin their journey to and in faith. He accepts us as we are (“Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling”) and sets us on a life-long path of discipleship in which we learn (often slowly) to implement the ideals of godly living as part of a transformation process. Most fail; some spectacularly and even scandalously (as did the Israelites), but God never gives up on us. Enter my recent reading.

Stephen Pinker’s tome on the history of violence comes to a surprising but statistically underpinned conclusion: “that violence really has gone down over the course of history”. He shows that as tribes settle into larger communities, as government becomes more centralised, and as legalised brutality (witch hunting, slavery, duelling etc) was outlawed, so violent deaths decrease.⁷ Even blips such as the First World War resulted in fewer violent deaths per 100,000 population than when tribal warfare ruled the world.

That tallies with the Old Testament narrative as early Israelite aggression under Joshua gave way to peaceful co-existence under Solomon, followed by periods of civil war and defence against invasions of superpowers who wished to control Judea as an important buffer and highway.

My second book was William Young’s novel The shack, the story of a man battling with God over tragedy and guilt. It has two key messages. One is that God neither plans nor initiates evil things, but is great enough to weave out of the chaos of human society something positive and good. The other is that we may not yet be able to see what that good is; God doesn’t answer all our questions (and our minds are too small to be able to comprehend the answers) but he asks for our trust that it is and will be so. Our judgement of his apparent actions and the cause and meaning of our circumstances is likely to be flawed.

So why did God apparently endorse genocide? He got hold of a group of tribes in their cultural context and began to shape them into something different over a period of centuries. He revealed that he is not an indulgent sugar-daddy but a parent who sets boundaries for his charges (as in the Ten commandments and ceremonial laws). Their battles showed that there is a spiritual war against superstition and wrong-doing (the Israelites had a paranoiac fear of the dilution of their faith by accommodating other gods). And he travelled with them on their error-prone journey from crude religiosity to the moral high ground of the sermon on the mount, from fearful nationalism to the warm embrace of all humanity through faith in Christ and reformation of manners through the Holy Spirit’s transforming presence.

Seeds of change
There is one more important matter to note. The OT is not “one long celebration of violence” as Pinker claims.⁸ There are signs early on that this was not God’s preferred way or ultimate interest. On the night before his successful defeat of Jericho, Joshua was confronted by an angelic warrior. Joshua asked whose side he was on; “neither”, came the reply (Joshua 5:13-15). Justice does not support “my country right or wrong”. Later OT history shows how God removed his support for the erring Israelites. 
 
The Israelites also had rules of engagement they were meant to follow. They were to show compassion to foreigners and offer peace before attacking, neither of which were normal practice at the time (Deuteronomy 10:17-19; 20:10-15). They were to decommission captured chariots (the OT equivalent of fighter jets) by laming the horses that pulled them (Joshua 11:6-9) and to respect the environment when conducting a siege (Deuteronomy 20:19f). And like people everywhere, they looked forward to a time when war would cease and all humanity live together in peace (eg Isaiah 2:3-5).

In other words, the God revealed in the New Testament has left traces of his presence and purposes in the Old Testament. His ways are still beyond comprehension. But this hard question about the past need not be a barrier to faith in the present.

Think and talk
1.  Look up these NT passages to see what they say about God’s progressive revelation:
Matthew 5:17-48 (notice the repeated references back to the law); Galatians 3:24, 4:3f (compare this to the sentiment of 1 Corinthians 13:11); Hebrews 1:1-3; 11:39f; 1 Peter 1:10f.
2.  Progressive revelation does not annul the principles that can be found in the OT. See 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20. How might we distil timeless principles from the time-bound events of the OT – what questions should we ask of OT passages as we read them?
3.  When tragedies happen, people often ask, “why has God allowed this?” From what you have read here, how might you begin to approach this issue?
4.  God in the OT is sometimes depicted as stern, while God in the NT is pictured as soft. Look up Deuteronomy 7:7-11 and Hebrews 10:26-31 and discuss the similarities and differences.
References
1.  Interview in Christianity magazine, March 2012.
2.  Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, quoted by Giles Whittell, The Times Magazine, 7 September 2013
3.  John Wenham, The goodness of God, IVP 1974, p.120
4.  Richard Hess, Joshua, IVP 1996, p.42
5.  Matthew White, Atrocitology, Canongate 2011, p.192
6.  Leon Morris, I believe in revelation, Hodder & Stoughton, 1976, p.139
7.  Stephen Pinker, The better angels of our nature, Penguin Books 2012, p.xx
8.  Stephen Pinker, ibid, p.7
 

 

Help the weak

Above: Photo of late 19th-early 20th century workhouse girls
in the Southwell Union Workhouse museum
Below right: one of the dormitories in the workhouse

There was universal condemnation recently of a British lawyer who called a 13 year-old girl a sexual predator during the trial of a 41 year-old man who had abused her. The act may have been consensual, but it wasn’t responsible on the man’s part. She was vulnerable, seeking attention and love; sometimes we have a duty to say no.

In other trials defence lawyers were accused of harassing rape victims, regardless of their feelings; one witness committed suicide after her courtroom ordeal. There were also reports about cyber bullying and a lack of care and compassion in some hospitals. Such stories offend human sensibilities, and if there is one indisputable and universal rule of social conduct in the Bible, it’s that vulnerable people are to be protected. The strong are to care for the weak.

We’re all vulnerable

The list of vulnerable people is long: children; teenagers pushing boundaries; elderly, sick and infirm people; physically and mentally disabled people; unemployed people (there are 2.5m unemployed in the UK and not enough suitable jobs to go round); people on low incomes facing rent, fuel and transport price rises; people who lose out to unscrupulous scammers. If you think of more, add them in the comments box below.

Then add yourself, because we’re all vulnerable. Not just at low spots in our lives, but we’re liable to make mistakes and errors of judgment at any time. That fact is at the heart of the Christian message. God knew our spiritual vulnerability and sent his Son to give us fresh starts and fresh strength: “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person,” Paul argues, “but God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:7-8).

The apostles were in no doubt about the implications: “Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11). A care-less Christian is a contradiction in terms.

Survival of the weakest

There have always been ruthless people who trample on others to gain wealth or power. The biblical narrative recognises this from the beginning, and makes clear provision to curb its excesses. Competition is fine in sport, but in society all are born equal; selfishness spawns suffering, competition creates corruption.

There was no civic welfare system in the ancient world. (Indeed, there was virtually none except the workhouse in the UK until the “welfare state” was introduced in the mid 1940s; one such is pictured right.) So people most at risk – widows, orphans and disabled people with no male supporter, and immigrants who had settled in the land (called “aliens” or “strangers” in some Bibles) – were singled out for special care from the wider family and community. Those who failed to care were said to be subject to God’s judgement. References are below.

Jesus demonstrated his compassion for marginalised people in his miracles and teaching. He promoted the protection of children, and threatened their users and abusers with judgement. He castigated posh people who neglected the poor. The mid-20^th century American spiritual writer, A.W. Tozer, pointedly remarked, “The Pharisees were bad not because they entertained their friends but because they would not entertain the poor and the common” people.¹ 

In the early church the first “order” of ministers (deacons), apart from the generally-recognised apostles, was not to feed the soul but the body, forming a structured welfare service for needy members (Acts 6:1-6). The New Testament is littered with injunctions to act kindly and share compassionately. There is just one cautionary note. Then, as now, a minority tried to take advantage of other people’s generosity. The solution was neither to despise needy people and label everyone as scroungers, nor to withdraw benefits, but to create what was then a culturally appropriate form of means testing (1 Timothy 5:9-16).

An obligation, not an option

In the Bible care for vulnerable people is an obligation, not an option; a priority, not an afterthought. Then, of course, charity did begin at home, with extended family and clan members obliged to shoulder responsibility for sometimes distant relatives, but the wider community chipped in too. In today’s different social environment we can’t shunt all welfare needs onto smaller and fragmented family units; community responsibility remains. We are our brothers’ keepers.

Throughout history Christians have been at the forefront of charitable support. They still are. For example, Green Pastures provides accommodation for 450 homeless people around the UK and has just announced its desire to encourage every church to have a house for homeless people.² The Trussell Trust which oversees food banks, many of them staffed and supported by church members, claims 13m people in Britain live below the poverty line and in 2012-13 has provided emergency supplies for 346,992 people of whom 126,889 were children.³ Currently the Archbishop of Canterbury is encouraging local churches to help to develop more credit unions so that people on the edge of survival can avoid exorbitant pay-day loan companies and sharks⁴.

The needs are as great as ever, but the attitudes of many people, Christians and some parts of the media and government included, seem to have hardened, perhaps because of the stress of coping with recession themselves. When the UK faced the privations of the second world war, its now elderly survivors speak of everyone helping each other out. Perhaps that spirit needs to be rekindled, and who better to do it than Christians whose primary commandments are to love God and to love their neighbour as themselves.

Think, study and talk

Look up some or all of the following passages and put into your own words the principles which they enshrine. Discuss with others, or write down on your own, possible contemporary applications for each one. Then ask how these principles and applications may suggest changes to your current attitudes and actions.

1.  God’s care for vulnerable people: Deuteronomy 10:17-19; Psalm 10:18, 146:9

2.  How to care for vulnerable people: Deuteronomy 24:14-15,17-22; 26:12; Romans 12:13’ 1 Thessalonians 5:14; James 1:27-2:7
3.  Examples of care: 2 Samuel 4:4, 9:1-13; Luke 10:25-37; Acts 4:32-35, 6:1-6
4.  Jesus’ acts of compassion: Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 7:11-15, 8:26-39, 13:10-17, 17:11-17, 18:35-43, 19:1-10
5.  Warnings against exploiting vulnerable people: Exodus 22:22-23; Deuteronomy 27:19; Isaiah 1:23-26, 10:1-4; Amos 2:6-8, 4:1-2, 5:11-15; Matthew 18:5-9, 23:23-24; James 5:1-6

References

1.  A.W. Tozer, We travel an appointed way, OM Publishing, 1992, p.80
2.  http://greenpastures.net/
3.  http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects
4.  My colleague Ian Black provides a perspective on this at http://canonianblack.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/strapped-for-cash.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/jleIP+(Ian+Black)   

 © Derek Williams 2013