Vision Series 2023

On the 28th of August 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. stood in front of the Lincoln Memorial

in Washington, D.C. and delivered what is regarded as one of the most famous speeches

of the 20th century. It's familiar to many people, the I Have a Dream speech, which in

part goes like this. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out

the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are

created equal. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former

slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table

of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day, even in the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering

with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed

into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will

one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by

the content of their character. I have a dream today. Is religion, and specifically Christianity,

a force for justice and good in the world, or is it a force for injustice and oppression

in the world? Now, it's possible to compile an enormous number of historical events and movements

to support either the negative or the positive answer to that question. One of the most obvious

cases in point is the African slave trade and the abolition of slavery. The African Christians

led the way in the abolition of the abolishing of the slave trade. And yet the creators and the

defenders of the slave trade were also Christians who had biblical scholars to support the practice

with a bunch of proof texts, even good people with a bunch of proof texts. Even today, we have

plenty of evidence of the abuse of women and children in many countries dominated by religion and within

religious institutions in our own country. In the end, the relationship of religion to justice cannot be

answered simply by adding up religious abuses, injustices on the one side of a sheet, and the list of

religious good and contributions on the other side of the sheet, and working out where does the balance end.

The good may outnumber the abuses, in fact, even by far, but wrongdoings have a tendency to lodge more

deeply in our memory and our conscience, and that the hurts go on and on and on. In the end, I think it's better to

look at the basis and the motivation to pursue justice in the world and compare which worldview supports and

motivates to make the world a more just and equitable place for all people. Now, if you just tuned into us

today, we are in our annual vision series. Every message in this vision series assumes the very first talk.

That's just an encouragement to go back there and listen to the first talk if you haven't already.

We began by seeing that there is no 100% watertight argument for the existence of God. You can't prove

the existence of God philosophically with evidence, so on and so forth, you know, empirical evidence.

But there's also no watertight argument for the non-existence of God. You also cannot prove the

non-existence of God philosophically or by putting it into some sort of a laboratory and proving it.

That means that every single person, the religious person and the atheist, are all viewing the world

through a belief system. That is, atheism is not the absence of belief. It is a different set of beliefs.

And so, the question that we've been looking at, which one gives the person who lives in this world

what they need in order to flourish in life? We've been particularly looking at Western secularism,

because that's the context that we're all currently living in right now.

And it's, the secularism is particularly the dominant theme that's running through much of

our institutions and media and so on today in this society. So, we're looking at that.

It's also the culture that I sit in, and so it's much easier for me to throw stones at my own culture

than it is to throw it at others, but do what you need to do to do that process for your own culture.

There's no such thing as a perfect culture. And so, today, we're looking at the question,

does secularism or Christianity give every human being what they need to flourish in life,

and particularly the issue of justice? So, today, it's Jesus all about justice.

We're going to see that the Christian faith gives us a justice that does not create more oppressors.

We're going to begin with the question of human rights, then look at secularism's contribution

and then, finally, the Christian contribution. So, first of all, if you've got the St. Paul's app,

it'd be great if you can go there. It will help you enormously to follow through along with this talk

or just take notes as you go along. So, first of all, let's kick off with human rights.

If you go to the website for the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,

you will read this statement.

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings.

They are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all,

regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language,

or any other status. They range from the most fundamental, the right to life,

to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.

The question is, however, why do people have these rights?

That's the really more fundamental question. Why?

You see, the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights

doesn't actually answer that question.

It just states it.

It lists human rights without any explanation.

And the quote that just there says that they simply exist because you're a human being.

So is it enough to say that human beings have rights without any reasoning,

without any explanation whatsoever?

Well, Western secularists insist that their view of human rights is simply self-evident,

without giving any grounds for them at all.

Now, Mari Ruti, I think that's her name,

is a distinguished professor of critical theory in gender and sexuality studies

at the University of Toronto in Canada.

In her book, The Call of Character, she writes this,

Although I believe that values are socially constructed rather than God-given,

I do not believe that gender inequality is any more defensible than racial inequality,

despite efforts to pass it off as cultural-specific custom rather than an instance of injustice.

See what she says there?

On the same page in the book,

she is suggesting that values are socially constructed.

Every society constructs their own values.

Then she adds that her own Western culture's view of inequality

must be embraced by every culture.

Incoherent on the same page as a secularist.

She gives no reason for it whatsoever, she just asserts it.

If you are proposing a position that some behaviour is wrong and should be stopped,

without justifying it,

then there is no way you can even have a conversation about it with someone who disagrees with you.

There's no basis for a conversation.

All you have left is shouting at the other person until they submit.

And so this leaves the secular human rights activists quite vulnerable,

which is what a number of sociologists are doing nowadays, are realising.

It leaves them quite vulnerable to charges of imperialism.

If human rights exist just because we say so,

then activists can only coerce others.

The atheist Friedrich Nietzsche,

no friend of Christianity whatsoever, this guy,

insisted that benevolence and social justice activism

in the modern society

is really powered by hatred and a contempt of others.

It's pretty damning.

Now, some secular thinkers have tried to explain why human rights exist.

Because they realise we've got a problem

if you just have to yell at people and tell them that they do.

So why do they exist?

Three main arguments.

I'll go through them really quickly,

except for the last one.

Less quickly than the other two.

The first is natural law.

That is,

this is just saying that when you look at nature

and how nature works,

it's obvious that people are worth more than the rest of nature.

The problem is,

you cannot hold to that view

that people are worth more than the rest of nature,

while at the same time holding to the very foundation of secularism,

and that is evolutionary biology.

You can't hold both of those two together.

Evolutionary biology says that the strong eat the weak,

and so the weak must be conquered and oppressed

for the sake of the advancement of society.

It has no quality and no category whatsoever.

Evolutionary biology has no category whatsoever

for equality and rights.

Then there's the argument that society creates rights.

Now, I touched on this one on my sermon a while ago,

Jesus all about goodness,

when we're looking at morality and so on.

As I said there,

it's not a great idea

to conclude that society comes up with right and wrong,

or the cursed society creates rights,

because what if the majority of society

choose to kill the minority of society?

You're left nowhere else to argue,

because the majority have voted on it.

And that has happened on,

and that continues to happen in our world.

Thirdly, is the argument

that the ground of human rights

is based on capacity.

That is,

and this one I think is very troublesome,

human rights have rights,

human beings, sorry, have rights

because of their capacity

for rational thought,

rational choice,

and other aptitudes

that the animal world doesn't have.

This is really serious.

For example,

newborn infants

do not yet have those capacities,

nor do those in a coma,

nor do those mentally impaired in some way,

nor do many of the very elderly.

This argument just ends up saying

that not all human beings have rights.

Can you see the trajectory of this

in our own society,

in Western civilization?

The rise of full-term abortions,

euthanasia,

and it all comes down to capacity.

This, I think,

is where Western secularism

really,

this particular worldview,

struggles to be consistent.

To have those views

and yet also pursue justice in our world,

and let me tell you,

I just want to say,

on top of all this,

I believe that our day and age,

we tend to probably be

more attuned to injustice in the world

than what we're used to.

So I think there's a bunch of good stuff happening

in spite of all of this.

But inevitably,

to have a consistent worldview,

they must import their values

from another worldview.

That is,

their system of issue of rights and injustice

must be stolen from another system,

another worldview.

And ultimately,

that system and that worldview

is the Christian faith.

That's because

a great,

Charles Taylor,

I think it was,

great piece of work,

looking back centuries and centuries

and centuries of history,

and said the concept of human rights

began with a Christian faith.

It began with a Christian faith.

It didn't develop for the first time

in the Enlightenment,

as many claim,

but it began with medieval Christianity

based on the Bible.

But the question is,

well, hang on a bit,

but doesn't Christianity

have its own problems with justice?

And the answer to that is,

of course,

yes.

Yes.

But not so fast as well.

Without any belief

in objective moral facts,

there is no way

that you can build

a program of justice.

And yet,

it is also true

that many religions

with their absolute claims

have abused

and have oppressed people

throughout the centuries

and across cultures.

So what's the way forward?

Well, Richard Baucombe

of the University of St. Andrews,

now retired,

writes in his essay,

Reading Scripture

as a Coherent Story,

he writes this,

we need a story

that once again

affirms universal values

while resisting

their co-option

by the forces of domination.

In short,

what he's saying there is,

we need a non-oppressive,

absolute truth worldview.

A non-oppressive,

absolute truth worldview.

We cannot work for justice

without some acknowledgement

of universal moral values,

but we also need something

that undermines

the natural,

powerful,

human inclination

to dominate other people.

And Baucombe believes

that what we need

lies right within

the Christian faith.

as described

in the biblical storyline.

The biblical storyline

starts with a loving God

creating humanity

in his image.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

sought a just society

on a much stronger,

in fact,

a considerably stronger footing

than modern secular people.

And the way he pursued that

was vastly different

than the modern secular person.

He was against violence.

He was against coercion.

He argued that segregation

of society

was not simply impractical

for the overall good

of society.

He argued that it was,

in fact,

a sin.

He knew that human rights

have no power

if they are just simply

created by the majority

or imposed

by some judicial system.

Human rights

have power

only

if they exist

on their own,

dependent

only on the fact

that a person

in the front of you

is, in fact,

a human being

equal with you.

And so,

drawing on the biblical teaching

that every human being

is created

in the image of God,

Genesis 1,

26, 27,

which is just read out to us,

he wrote that God's image

in us

gives every person

a uniqueness,

it gives him worth,

it gives him a dignity,

and we must never forget

this as a nation.

There are no gradations

in the image of God.

Every man

from a treble white

to a bass black

is significant

on God's keyboard,

precisely because

every man

is made

in the image of God.

That is,

the Christian faith

gives us

the strongest,

strongest

possible

foundation

for the idea

of human rights.

every person

who comes

into your presence

has an inherent worth

and a sacred dignity,

every single one of them,

including the ones

you disagree with.

To further build on this,

the biblical story

is one of reversal.

It reveals a story

of God's

repeated choice,

repeated choice

of the dominated

and the wretched,

the powerless

and the marginal.

The Bible begins

with the book of Genesis,

written in a time

when the passing

of all the family's

wealth and estate

went to the eldest son.

That was the iron law

of its time

in virtually

all of society.

Every other child

was a spare.

But Genesis

is subversive.

It is subversive

in its cultural,

in this cultural norm.

God constantly

chooses

and works

through the sons

without the power,

without the social

collateral.

He chooses

Abel

over Cain,

Isaac

over Ishmael,

Jacob

over Esau,

Joseph

over Reuben.

And when God

works with women,

he does not choose

the women

with the cultural power.

He does not choose

the ones with the beauty

and the sexuality.

He works through

the old

and the infertile Sarah,

not through

the younger Hagar.

Through the unloved

and unattractive Leah,

not through Rachel.

God repeatedly

refuses

to allow

his gracious

activity

to run

along

the expected

lines

of worldly

influence

and privilege.

You don't see it

anywhere.

In his economy,

the person

on the outer

is the person

in the center.

As the Bible

storyline

marches on,

we see God

standing beside

Israel in slavery

against the oppression

of the greatest empire

in the world

at that time.

Then there is

the story

of the judges

with the deliverers

and leaders

who led

Israel

whenever it

fell under

the dominion

of a powerful

nation.

God mostly

in those cases

mostly raises

up someone

from a smaller

tribe,

from a lower

status,

a lower family

status,

or even the

class of social

outclasses.

For instance,

Jephna,

Gideon,

Samson.

He even uses

women,

which was not

the cultural

norm at that

time.

And then in

Samuel,

David,

the king,

is the youngest

and the smallest

of Jesse's

sons.

Then there's

the New Testament

where Jesus Christ

encounters a

respected male

and a socially

marginalized woman

in John 3

and 4,

or a religious

leader and tax

collector in Luke

18,

or a religious

teacher and a

fallen woman in

Luke 7.

It is always

the outsider,

the socially

marginalized

person who

connects more

readily with

Jesus.

Always.

And along

with this

narrative of

the reversal

of the weak

and the strong,

the rich and

the poor,

there is a

wide and deep

river of

ethical teaching

and appeal to

all Christians

to pursue

justice in the

world.

The Old

Testament prophets

insist that a

lack of care

for the poor

and needy is a

sign of a lack

of genuine

faith in God.

Isaiah 1,

17,

58,

6 and 7.

The New

Testament

likewise teaches

that a practical

love for the

poor is a

mark of a

heart changed

by grace.

We just had

that read out

to us in

James chapter

James 2 · chapter mention

2.

But crucially

though,

crucially,

the reason

for this

persistent

storyline in

the Bible is

because the

ultimate example

of God's

work in the

world was

Jesus Christ

himself.

Jesus Christ

is the only

founder of

a world

religion,

of one of

the major

world religions,

who died in

disgrace,

died abandoned

by everybody

whom he

cared about,

including his

heavenly father.

My God,

my God,

why have you

forsaken me?

He was the

victim of a

miscarriage of

justice,

he died oppressed

and helpless.

And salvation

comes to us

through his

poverty,

through his

rejection,

through his

weakness.

Christians are

not saved

in any way

by summoning up

their strength

and accomplishing

great deeds,

but in fact

by admitting

their weakness

and their need

for a saviour.

Essentially

what the

Christian gospel

is,

is Jesus

calling out to

us and

saying,

you can't

do it.

You must

rely upon me.

A salvation

earned by

works and

moral effort

always,

always,

always favours

the more

able,

the competent,

the accomplished

and the privileged.

Always does.

Salvation by

sheer grace

favours the

failed,

the outsider,

the weak,

because it

goes only to

those who know

salvation must

be by sheer

grace.

you see,

what the

Bible doesn't

do for us,

it does not

show us

a story

after story

after story

of heroes

of the faith

who go from

strength to

strength to

strength.

Instead,

we get a

series of

stories containing

figures who

are usually

not the

people that

the world

would expect

to be

spiritual

leaders and

rescuers of

others.

Even some

of the most

ableist human

beings who

have ever

lived,

let's say

Abraham and

David in

the Bible,

they themselves

could not

rise above the

brutality of

their own

cultures,

nor the

self-centeredness

of their own

hearts.

But by

clinging to

the wondrous

promise that

God's grace is

given to moral

failures,

ultimately they

triumphed in

humility.

The Bible is a

record of God's

intervening grace

in the lives of

people who don't

seek it,

who don't

deserve it,

who consistently

resist it,

and who don't

appreciate it once

they've been

saved by it.

So let me say

gently, if this

surprises you at

all, it may

mean that you

have bought into

a completely

mistaken idea

what the

Christian faith

is.

Namely, that

Christianity is

about how those

who live morally

and good lives

are consistently

taken to

heaven.

there is one

final chapter in

the Christian

worldview, the

story that

marches through

the Bible, and

that is the

chapter where God

winds up all of

history.

And all of

humanity who

have ever lived

will stand before

Jesus Christ and

give account of

their lives and

the final day of

justice.

all those who

have suppressed

God and

oppressed others

will be eternally

condemned.

But all those who

have responded to

the grace of

Jesus Christ in

weakness and

humility will be

brought into his

presence forever.

forever.

It will be an

eternity of pure

joy in a

perfect world of

bliss where

every wrong

will be made

right, every

tear wiped

away.

There will be no

more poverty and

oppression, no

more inequality,

all, every single

one who will be

there, joint

heirs with

Christ the Son.

So what does

all this mean for

the Christian

pursuing justice

in the world?

It first of all

means that we

entrust God with

the final outcome.

That's the great

story of the

Christian hope of

final justice.

Secularism cannot

give you that.

It's got this

world now as its

final hope.

That's it.

And so we work

patiently knowing

that this God

will eventually

make everything

right in the

end.

That is

ultimately hope

for the weary

justice warrior in

our world.

Also, belief in

the story of

salvation by grace

through faith in

Jesus Christ,

what it does for

the Christian, it

breaks the cycle

of which the

oppressed become

oppressors in

their turn.

in the Old

Testament, the

Israelites are

constantly warned,

constantly warned,

not to oppress

immigrants and

racial outsiders

amongst them and

around them.

Why?

Because remember,

you too were

foreigners in

Egypt.

In other words,

remember your

salvation.

So Leviticus 19,

33, 34 makes

that really clear.

the memory of

their salvation

from slavery

by God's grace

was to radically

undermine their

natural human

inclination for

domination over

others.

But it's at the

cross where Jesus

Christ is crucified

that the cycle of

the oppressing

becoming oppressors

is totally broken.

in Jesus, God

radically identified

with the poor

and the oppressed.

He was born into

a poor family.

He lived among

the marginalized

and the outcast.

His trial was a

miscarriage of

justice.

He died

violently,

naked,

and penniless.

that is,

the Son of God

himself

knew,

experienced

what it was

like to be

the victim

of injustice,

to stand up

to a corrupt

system

and to be

killed by it.

And the

Christian faith,

central in the

Christian faith,

is that we know

that he did

that to make

an atonement

for our sins

to set us

free

from the

just penalty

for us

living our

lives,

suppressing

the allegiance

and love

that we owe

God.

Christians know

that in the

eyes of God,

we are

spiritually poor,

that we are

spiritually powerless.

like the

oppressed of

this world,

we are

spiritually

outcasts,

we are

slaves,

but God

saved us

by becoming

oppressed

for us.

Now,

it is

true,

it is

true that

claiming

universal

moral truths

like the

Christian faith,

Jesus says,

I am the

only way,

the truth

and the

life,

that claims

like that

historically

have led

to oppression

of others.

That is

true.

But what

if the

universal

truth

is a

man who

died for

his enemies,

who did

not respond

in violence,

respond to

violence with

violence,

but in

fact forgave

his enemies,

what if

that's the

ultimate,

moral,

absolute,

universal

truth?

At the

very least,

what that

means is

that if you

call yourself

a Christian,

you profess

to be

Christian and

aligned to

Jesus,

if you

are not

committed to

a life of

radical

generosity,

if you're

not committed

to a life

of justice

towards the

poor and

the

marginalized,

at the

very least,

it means

you're living

contradiction

to the

good news

of Jesus

Christ.

It means

at least

that.

You're a

living

contradiction.

You see,

the cross

of Jesus

Christ

breaks the

cycle of

oppression

in every

single

way.

In every

single

way.

life.

As I

mentioned

earlier,

people who

are passionate

for justice

are in

danger of

becoming

self-righteous

and cruel

in their

pursuit of

justice,

particularly

when they're

confronted

with other

people who

they perceive

to be

oppressors of

others.

On the

other hand,

the Christian

life stands

with the

understanding

and hear

me say

this,

this is not

meant for

shock factor,

the Christian

life starts

with the

understanding

that you

are an

oppressor.

You are

an oppressor.

The Christian

life begins

by confessing

that you

have in

fact

suppressed

God.

God.

You've

wronged

him.

In every

possible way

in your

life,

you've

wronged

him.

And you

have wronged

others who

are made

in his

image.

church.

We have

not loved

and honoured

our

neighbours

as we

wish to

be treated

ourselves.

In other

words,

every

Christian

who

understands

the

gospel

admits

that he

or she

has been

an oppressor

of God

and neighbour.

are.

When we

lie,

we deprive

people of

the truth

that they

have a

right to.

When we

break our

promises,

we derive

people of

the goods

that they

have a

right to.

If we

are not

poor and

we choose

to close

our hearts

to those

who are,

we deprive

them of

the sustenance

they have a

right to.

I could

just go on

and on

and on

and on

and on.

Christians

know that

they have

hearts of

oppressors

and yet

they have

been saved

by grace

nonetheless.

Saved

by grace.

And so

when they

confront an

oppressor,

it is

possible to

do it

with a

steely

and a

courageous

determination.

But the

gospel also

teaches them

to do it

without

self-righteousness

and without

anger,

without

sarcasm,

without

passive

aggressiveness.

that is,

the Christian

because of

the gospel

cannot

possibly

hate the

haters.

They cannot

possibly

oppress

the oppressors.

And I

think Dr.

King

really

embraced that

in the

1960s.

and as a

multi-ethnic

church,

to the

degree that

we see

Jesus

oppressed

for us,

the

oppressors,

so that

God embraces

us in

him forever

and we

serve each

other,

we will

serve each

other and

we will seek

the welfare

of each

other.

I'm

convinced

the more

we see

Jesus

oppressed

for the

oppressors,

to enable

to set

us free

by his

grace,

the more

that we

live out

that relationship

amongst us

as ourselves

as a church,

our society

will in fact

see that

the gospel

of the Lord

Jesus Christ

is plausible,

is relevant,

and it is

good.

Amen.