Summary and Conclusion

Summary

What has been my purpose in producing this set of articles?

For well over 1,000 years, Christianity has been the primary religion of Britain, Ireland, and most of continental Europe. Its worldview has been almost universally accepted, and its moral code has formed the basis not only of every-day life for the man and woman in the street, but of the legal systems of all of those nations.

Of course, there have always been those who thought otherwise and who embraced a different understanding of the world and a different set of values, but the general trend was to follow the Christian way.

There are those who would say that Christianity has failed and has been the root cause of many of the world’s problems. I would respond by contending that the failure cannot be laid at the door of Christianity, but at the door of those who purported to be servants of Christ but who were, in reality, wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15).

The church is supposed to be the household of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), the body of Christ which grows and builds itself up in love as each part does its work (Ephesians 4:16). Instead, it became an institution governed by men who used it as a vehicle of control and oppression by which they became wealthy and exercised an ungodly authority falsely in the name of the One who came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45).

Genuine Christianity brings freedom. Jesus said:

In similar vein, the apostle Paul tells us:

But freedom can only be true freedom when it has BOUNDARIES:

When we abandon the boundaries that enable to us to stay free, we end up being captives and slaves of the very activities that we pursued in our attempt to shake off those restrictions – the alcohol, the drugs, the pornography, the gambling, the promiscuity, the money, the power:

At the heart of Christian ethics and the Christian moral code is what has become known as ‘the Great Command’. Here it is in Mark’s Gospel:

It’s interesting to note that these commandments did not originate from Jesus, but both of them come from Moses, in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18 respectively, so Jesus was not saying anything new. Both Judaism and Christianity have at their heart love for God and love for neighbour.

In recent years, Christianity has been under attack through the increasing acceptance of what is normally known as ‘Secular Humanism’, whose fundamental worldview is atheistic.

When I was growing up, everybody went to church at least a few times per year, every home had at least one Bible in it, every school had a morning assembly which incorporated a hymn, a prayer, a reading from the Bible, or some other expression of Christian faith, and everybody was familiar with the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and Psalm 23. Everybody also accepted that the Christian moral code was the proper standard that we should live by, even if most people did not live up to it most of the time.

Things are totally different today. Secular Humanism has been endeavouring to remove religion from the public space, and has enjoyed a fair bit of success. There are many people in Britain and Ireland today who know nothing about Christianity, have never darkened the door of a church, never held a Bible in their hand, never mind reading it, and have no idea what the words ‘Ten Commandments’, ‘Lord’s Prayer’, or ‘Psalm 23’ might be referring to.

A few years ago, while I was still at work, so it was before 2018, as I was listening to the morning news programme on Radio Ulster in the run-up to Christmas, the presenter read out a message from a listener whose child had come home from school and reported that the teacher wanted the class to make a crib for ‘the baby cheeses’!

The presenter thought that this was amusing, but I saw it as a tragedy that in Northern Ireland, the least un-Christian region of the U.K., there are children of school age who have never heard of Jesus Christ.

I suspect that anti-religion people such as Professor Richard Dawkins would be delighted with this turn of events as he, along with Karl Marx, considers religion to be the root of all the world’s ills and woes, despite the fact that the worst human rights abuses tend to take place in countries where religion is totally excluded from the public space, such as China, North Korea, and Russia (where the official ‘church’, the Russian Orthodox Church, is an arm of the security establishment, the F.S.B.).

Professor Dawkins believes that the reason we exist physically is to propagate our genes, and the reason that we exist intellectually is to propagate our memes. At least, he says that he believes it. Whether he actually does or not, only he and the God he does not believe in know. I would think that it would be very difficult for anyone to believe such a thing and remain free from crippling depression, but he is a very strong-minded and strong-willed man, so he is probably able to put it all to one side and get on with his daily life without thinking too much about it, except when he comes to write one of his books and has to explain it.

Secular Humanism denies God and exalts man. It rejects the idea that there is any objective ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in the universe, just as there is no purpose in the universe – it just is, because the Big Bang happened. Neither is there any intrinsic meaning or value anywhere in the universe. Purpose, meaning, value, good, evil, and all things ethical or moral, are assigned by man and man alone, and even ‘truth’ is nothing more than the material facts of the case, which may be revised and updated as more data comes in.

This approach to life means that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ are based on human priorities, which change from time to time relative to what are perceived to be current necessities or concerns. The means are justified by the end, but the end that will be tomorrow may be at odds with the end that was yesterday.

At the heart of the Secular Humanist moral code is the principle of individual human rights rather than the Judaeo-Christian principle of love – love for God and love for your neighbour. But because there is no over-arching sense of RIGHTEOUSNESS, what is considered to be a human right may change from time to time, depending on perceived necessities or concerns.

A concern that has come to the fore in recent years, as the product of a sustained and well thought out campaign by Stonewall, the Rainbow Coalition, and other lobby groups, is the rights of members of the L.G.B.T. community. This is a prime example of how ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ can change over time in a Secular Humanist society.

Up until 1967, homosexual activity in the U.K. was illegal. (It remained so in Northern Ireland until the mid-1980s.) The basis for its prohibition had been that the law reflected the Biblical teaching that homosexual activity is, in the eyes of God, sinful. However, as British society gradually moved away from its Christian roots and traditions, its understanding of right and wrong also underwent a corresponding modification.

By the time we came to 2010 and the election of the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government, much of society had adopted the view that homosexuality was good, wholesome, healthy, and to be celebrated, and there was a groundswell of support for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Now, here is an interesting question: should marriage be redefined again to include so-called ‘poly-amorous’ groups of three, four, or more?

The reason that this is interesting is that those who objected to same-sex couples being allowed to be married were branded as bigots, dinosaurs (Nick Clegg’s word), and homophobes, so when someone comes forward, as they almost certainly will do, and pushes for poly-amorous marriage, what will the response be from the supporters of same-sex marriage?

The answer must be that they will have to support poly-amorous marriage, because to do otherwise would make them utter hypocrites. Those who object to poly-amorous marriage will, no doubt, again have to put up with being vilified as bigots, dinosaurs, and – presumably – polyphobes.

Then, what about polygamy? Will anyone be able to object to that? Or what if someone comes in from left field and wants to marry his sister, or his mother, or his horse? Such things were not unheard of in ancient pagan cultures.

When boundaries are broken down, it is very difficult to build them up again.

The redefinition of marriage just once means that marriage no longer has a definition in the strict sense of that word – the boundaries, once firm, have become flaccid, and so it is laid open to becoming more and more undefined over time.

However, we can take some comfort from the fact that marriage has been redefined only in terms of the law of the land in certain countries.

Marriage per se is as it always has been and always will be – the lifelong union of one man and one woman for the purpose of establishing a family that is founded on mutual love, trust, respect, and affection.

Additional Sources

Here are a few links to websites that you might find interesting or helpful in relation to this vitally important subject. Some are Christian, some are not.

Coalition For Marriage

Advocacy for real marriage, with articles and interviews that explain the issues and highlight the failings of the Secular Humanist undermining of marriage, family, and man/woman relationships.

Christian Concern

Christian Concern supports and advocates for people who find themselves at the receiving end of discrimination against those who stand up for Christian values in a secular world.

ADF International

ADF (Alliance Defending Freedom International), like Christian Concern, stands with those who are being discriminated against or persecuted in various countries and jurisdictions throughout the world and assists them in their legal fight for justice in the courts.

Päivi Räsänen

The case of Päivi Räsänen, the Finnish lawmaker who has been dragged through the courts by the Finnish State Prosecutor for stating on Twitter, with a Biblical quotation, that the Lutheran Church should not be supporting a Gay Pride march. She has been acquitted twice already, but the Prosecutor is now taking the matter to the Supreme Court. This is not just bigotry and discrimination, this is persecution at the hands of a representative of the system of justice.

Katy Faust

Katy Faust is an American activist for children’s rights. I read her first book, ‘Them Not Us’, which underscores the importance of one-man-one-woman family structure and criticises the modern trend to see sexuality as a means of personal gratification rather than the foundation of a loving and successful family.

Let Us Pray

One of the most objectionable turns on this twisty road is the tendency to treat praying as a criminal offence (which, of course, it is not). Some people have been arrested by over-zealous virtue-signalling police for standing alone and in silence within the bounds of a so-called buffer zone around an abortion clinic, because the police think it is an offence to pray within such an area.

Added to this, there are those who want to make it a criminal offence to pray for anyone who happens to be within the L.G.B.T. spectrum, as this, along with informal conversation, is seen as being a type of ‘conversion practice’ if there is any suggestion within it that the L.G.B.T. person might not be on the right track.

This brings to mind the account in the Bible of an incident that occurred during one of the few civil wars that took place in Israel. A dispute had arisen between the men of Gilead and the men of Ephraim:

Today, your virtue is not signalled by your ability to pronounce ‘shibboleth’ correctly, but by your willingness to support same-sex marriage and transgenderism.

However, when we hear about people taking what I can only call an extreme position on this, such as the police arresting someone for standing quietly by themselves, or politicians advocating for it to be made a criminal offence to pray with, counsel, or even have a private conversation with someone who is L.G.B.T., one wonders whether they protest too much in their effort to signal to whomever may be interested that they are on the right side of history, even though they may not be convinced of it in their own heart.

The website Let Us Pray presents some quotations from people who support a ban on what is referred to as ‘conversion therapy’. Here is one of those quotations, from a fellow-countryman of mine:

[Some politicians] say that churches offering pastoral care or sitting down and talking and preaching to people about their lifestyle doesn’t constitute conversion therapy. But I’m sorry, it does.

Pete Byrne, SDLP councillor

SOURCE: 'Armagh I', 5 May 2021, see www.armaghi.com/news/crossmaglen-news/podcast-lgbtq-champion-councillor-pete-byrne-on-wearing-a-mask-he-was-unable-to-take-off-for-10-years/133967 as at 9 July 2021

I wonder whether Councillor Byrne has taken the trouble to think his statement through.

Let’s assume that an L.G.B.T. person, whom we’ll call Elgie, is involved in a conversation with someone and the subject of their sexual orientation or transgenderism arises and Elgie participates in the conversation, it would seem to me that Elgie’s willing engagement in the discussion would make him/her at the very least an accessory to this banned offence of ‘conversion therapy’.

And what about the possibility that Elgie decides at some point that he/she does not want to continue in their gay lifestyle or their gender transition? What is he/she to do? They cannot ask anyone for help or even advice, because anyone who does not advise them to either remain as they are or to continue with their gender transition will be in breach of the law.

This means that such a law would condemn Elgie, once a decision has been made to as much as consider pursuing such a lifestyle, to follow through on a commitment which he/she may never actually have made, but has been denied any way back once the initial suggestion has been voiced.

In short, any such draconian ‘conversion therapy’ or ‘conversion practices’ ban would succeed only in setting a trap for the very people whom it purports to protect, by removing their freedom to decide for themselves how they may want to live their lives at a future time.

Conclusion

In closing, let me ask you this question: what type of society do you want?

Do you want one where people are free to believe what they believe and to express that belief freely, or do you want one where people live in fear of being punished for mispronouncing ‘shibboleth’, and so they toe the line, self-censor, and offer incense to a god that they do not worship?

The U.K. Parliament recognises five British Values:

• Democracy
• The Rule of Law
• Individual Liberty
• Mutual Respect
• Tolerance of Different Faiths and Beliefs

It is unfortunate that there is a significant level of intolerance in certain quarters for those who are not supporters of either same-sex marriage or transgenderism, not to mention abortion-on-demand.

One current example is the disgraceful way in which a young man called Felix Ngole has been treated both by his university and by his prospective employer.

In 2016, Felix was expelled from his Social Work course by the University of Sheffield after posting on social media Bible verses that were deemed to be critical of homosexuality. In the following year, he lost a judicial review at the High Court, but in 2019 the Appeal Court overturned the High Court ruling and Felix was able to return to university and finish his degree.

In 2022, Felix was offered a job as a social worker, but when his prospective employer found out about the court cases, the job offer was withdrawn unless he were to commit to promoting and embracing L.G.B.T. ideology. Felix took the matter to an Employment Tribunal, which eventually sat in April 2024. The tribunal judge ruled that Felix had been the victim of direct discrimination.

However, the matter has not been finally resolved, with the employer’s counsel arguing that the discrimination is appropriate in this instance, as a prospective client might be offended if they discovered that their social worker did not support same-sex marriage.

What will be the end of all of this? Is there any future in continually calling each other names, lobbing offensive posts at each other over social media, and dragging each other through the courts? Does anybody really want to live like this? Surely there must be a better way?

Indeed there is, and that way is the way of RECONCILIATION, which we can break down into three simple steps.

The first step is for each of us to reconcile ourselves to GOD. But, how is that to be done?

God has provided all that we need to enable us to do this, but each of us needs to DESIRE that reconciliation. If the desire is not there, it will never happen. If the desire IS there then, like the Prodigal Son in Christ’s parable, we can come humbly before our Heavenly Father, confess our need of His forgiveness, and find grace to help us in our time of need (Hebrews 4:16).

The second step is for each of us to reconcile ourselves to OURSELVES. What do I mean by that?

Do you remember that we looked earlier on at what has come to be known among Christians as ‘the Great Command’:

If I am to be able to love my neighbour as myself, then I need to be able to love myself, but how do I do that? We normally think of ‘self-love’ as being a bad thing, because it means putting myself in the centre of the top table and expecting everybody else to see me as somebody special. But this is definitely not what God has in mind.

To love myself as God wants me to, means to see myself as He sees me and accept myself as I am, just as He does, warts and all, and to believe what God says about not only what I am but what I can become if I walk humbly hand in hand with Jesus (Matthew 11:25-30).

The apostle Paul was able to look at himself with perfect candour and see a man who was, in one respect, a total failure, and yet in another way a great success. Here are three of his statements about himself:

Every human being can find reason to harbour regret, disappointment, embarrassment, shame, fear, and perhaps even grudges or resentments, but in Christ we are able to bring all of these things under the cleansing flow of His blood and leave them in the past, where we can learn from them and become wise by them, but no longer need to be either restricted or motivated by them.

I know what I was before I gave my life to Christ, and I am not proud of what I was or what I did, but that was ‘the old man’ (Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9-10, but please read the entire chapter). ‘The new man’ has built his life not on selfish ambition or vain conceit (Philippians 2:3) but on the word of God, the living seed from which eternal life bursts forth (1 Peter 1:23).

When I am able to see myself as God sees me and accept myself as He accepts me, then I am able also to see you as God sees you and accept you as God accepts you, warts and all.

But we must always remember that although God accepts you as you are, He loves you too much to allow you to stay that way. He wants you to be the best ‘you’ that you can be, and that requires the transformation that we spoke about previously, because the best ‘you’ is not the ‘you’ that came out of your mother’s womb, but the ‘you’ that you can become through the power and influence of His grace in your life (Ephesians 2:1-10).

The third step is for us to reconcile ourselves to EACH OTHER, which is made possible once we have committed ourselves to loving God with our whole being and learned to love ourselves as He loves us.

This love does not necessarily mean that we must always agree with each other. We may still have our differences, but we are able to live together in peace and harmony, knowing that, as we grow in grace and in the knowledge of God (2 Peter 3:17-18), we will all come to that place of unity of knowledge and understanding which seems to elude us today (Ephesians 4:13).