There are various reasons why I am disappointed that MPs have approved hybrid embryo research, have rejected the ’saviour sibling’ ban, have rejected the consideration of the need for a father in consideration of IVF treatment and have rejected the bid to lower the upper limit for abortions.

However, the ethical questions aside, as so often I am most disappointed by the level at which the argumentation seems to take place. Consider the example of ‘the need for a father.’

I understand that there is plenty of evidence that the absence of a father has a significant impact on children in terms of health, education and employment. That is emphatically not the same as saying ‘lesbians will make bad parents’ (the rather obvious, rhetorically effective and yet entirely false spin which oponents would put to those making this claim. Take the following less emotive example to make the point. If I say ‘I think Apples are very good for you’ that does not mean that I therefore think ‘Oranges are bad for you.’).

But, regardless of this, the primary argument against retaining this factor for consideration in the ‘welfare’ test for IVF seemed to be the possibility of discrimination against lesbian couples and against single women.

Although the surface argument (and so most of the media noise) concerns the ‘welfare of the child’ - the reality is this argument boils down to declaring some kind of right to have a child. And this seems argument seems to be absurd. Where do we get the notion of ‘the right to have a child?’

If a woman is physically unable to have a child (due to some medical condition) does ‘the right to have a child’ mean that she can press-gang some kind of surrogate mother into bearing a child for her? If it is an absolute right, then can a 10 year old boy demand ‘the right to have a child’?

A child is not some kind of status symbol or accessory but is a person. In focusing on the ‘rights’ of some person to have a child, and especially in that positive-sounding (but in reality deeply misleading) phrase ‘the right to choose what happens to your body’ we have completely missed this point.

May God have mercy on our nation.

For some well-researched arguments about the science and the ethics of these issues may I recommend the Christian Medical Fellowship site.

An intriguing article appeared on the BBC yesterday reporting that theologians in Turkey have been commissioned by the government to revise the Hadith - an important text for Muslims interpreting the Koran (and an important source for Sharia law).

This may well be a very positive thing - particularly in relation to the rights and treatment of women in that society.

Although, as a Bible-believing Christian, I would deny the truth of the Islamic texts, two of the approaches which the article suggests are involved in the process are very similar to what we seek to do in understanding the Bible:

1. Trying to interpret individual verses in the light of the whole text
2. Trying, as far as possible, to return to the ‘text as given’ and so to remove ‘later interpolations’

However, the overall process sounds to be an extremely subjective one in which the aim is really to produce a new version of Islam which suits the needs of the state and the mores of the day.

It is in the light of this that some of the comments by Fadi Hakura (”an expert on Turkey”) seemed particularly inaccurate:

“This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation,” he says.
“Not exactly the same, but if you think, it’s changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. ”

It seems that Mr Hakura hasn’t really grasped anything of the Essence of the Reformation. It wasn’t a revision of the text in the light of current social ideals, it was a return to the text which was used to challenge current social (and particularly religious) practises. The entire basis of the reformation was a submission to the texts themselves - not the subjective revision of the texts.

There has been wide coverage of the Prime Minister’s recommendation of presumed consent for organ donors.

I will side-step the question of whether such ‘consent’ is genuine or not because a different question bothers me.

I am amazed by the number of people who are prepared to stand up for the right for people’s wishes to be upheld after they are dead when contrasted with how few people seem to be bothered with the right’s of human beings while they are still alive.

Apparently in the UK over 1,000 people a year die for lack of organ donation. Compare this with (in 2006) almost 200,000 lives terminated via abortion.

And this latter number is only likely to rise. Thus only a month ago there was discussion about the possibility of GP surgery abortions.

The irony seems to lie in the fact that although people will always debate about when life starts, there seems to be much greater unanimity about when it ends. And when your life has ended, it seems fairly clear that you have no use for your organs. Unlike the person who is still alive…

Last week I had the benefit of hearing a presentation by Christian Concern for Our Nation and wanted to bring their good work to the attention of anyone who happens to read this site.

I was very challenged by the way that over the last few decades in the UK we have enabled our faith to be so easily privatised, and the way in which laws which are designed to achieve one thing, can have very different, often unforseen consequenecs.

In many ways the ungodly laws which are currently being passed can be seen as God’s judgement on our nation. This is a time for Christians to repent - of our own failure to act, and on behalf of our nation (see Daniel 9) - and to cry out to God for mercy on our nation. And we need to seek to act where we can to lobby for better laws.

Of course, real change requires God to change people’s hearts, so we need to be praying too for revival in our land. And we need to be working hard to share the gospel with those who have never heard it.

And perhaps above all to pray for wisdom to know how to balance these different ways of living out our faith, and the boldness to do so.

The recent woes of Northern Rock (and to a certain extent the earlier panic in the USA) seem to be related to the state of the ‘Sub-Prime Mortgage’ market. ‘Sub-Prime’ seems to be something of a euphemism for ‘mortgages for people that can’t really afford them’ and as the BBC’s investigation seems to indicate, some brokers have got round this unfortunate problem by persuading would-be borrowers to lie about their wages.

Now if the normal pattern of things occurs it is likely that first of all the brokers will have their wrists slapped for ‘mis-selling,’ and then the borrowers will complain that they only took loans on ‘expert advice’ and so are not responsible at all.

The thing is, they are BOTH responsible. It is not a valid argument to suggest that because this is a ‘financial’ matter some kind of ignorance is a defence - because the issue (for the borrowers at least) is not so much ignorance as blatant falsification of information. If genuine ignorance meant they failed to appreciate they would be over-stretching themselves financially that is very unfortunate, but what on earth is going on in a society where people will lie in this kind of transaction without thinking it is wrong?

The God who made this world built the pattern of blessing for truth-telling into the very nature of things. As our society moves further and further away from His way it is no surprise that things go wrong.

I am not an economist so the following statement is problem reductionist in the extreme, but if over a long period of time we had not been encouraged to purchase properties beyond our means, it seems likely that prices would not have risen as quickly as they have done, due to the simple laws of supply and demand.

Regardless of this point, we must work and pray for a society which sees the inherent value in truthfulness, and much more than that, a society which begins to take note of the One who is entirely true, entirely good and entirely faithful.

There is no denying Harry’s popularity as ‘Book 6′ breaks all sales records.

And amongst certain branches of Christianity the debate seems to rumble on about whether or not Christians should be reading about ‘witchcraft’ and the like (a really good summary article of both positions here).

But having finished reading The Deathly Hallows yesterday, and also having watched Order of the Phoenix (OOP) on the same day, it strikes me that this argument is often carried out on far too superficial a level.

In the past I have defended the books on the basis of their general ‘moral framework’ of good and evil. But I now think that the reality is less positive than that.

In OOP, Sirius tells Harry, “We all have dark and light within us. What matters is the part we choose to act on.” Although positively this avoids the naive assumption that everyone is ‘good’, this kind of self-determinism is clearly a long way away from the Biblical picture of mankind helpless to choose the good without the work of the Spirit.

There is more to be said about the worldview of Harry Potter, but I am convinced that it is precisely because this mirrors so accurately the worldview of so many in the West that the book has done so well. In saying this I acknowledge firstly, that this may happen on an entirely subconscious level for many if not most readers and secondly, that it is also an excellent story which keeps its reader gripped.

So the ‘danger’ for Christians reading or watching HP, is that they do so with an uncritical mind, and begin to accept the worldview presented there, rather than critically evaluating it against the Biblical truth.

(For further reading, Hollywood Jesus provide a typically stimulating discussion of OOP here)

I have just picked up on an interesting article from The Guardian which suggests that the well publicised ‘new atheist’ movement (represented by the Dawkins/Dennett type of school) is essentially motivated by a political agenda - and in particular fear of radical Islam and ‘fundamentalist’ America.

Bunting rightly recognises that in their “vituperative polemic” the new atheists may be doing themselves no favours - and also comments on the worrying tendency towards ‘irreligious intolerance’ - which sounds scarily like an atheist version of the Inquisition.

But perhaps most interestingly of all, she picks up on a point which the evolutionary thinkers have still failed to answer adequately - “the durability and near universality of religion is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking.”

But the ‘new atheists’ don’t seem to like debating questions they have no answers to.

A news article this morning caught my eye.  The Fire Brigade Union are having an argument about the representation of minority groups on their executive committee.

The debate centres on whether having black, gay and women representatives on the committee gives those ‘interest groups’ greater power than corresponds to their proportion of the total membership.

It represents a microcosm of some issues which we find in society at large.  Because of course, suggesting that these representatives shouldn’t have so much influence immediately leaves you open to the charge of “racism, homophobia or sexism.”  Toleration now seems to be our society’s primary value - although as many have argued this isn’t real tolerance.

But the reality is, that in a parallel way, well-organised ‘minority’ groups in democracies can affect the lives of everyone.  And therein lies the challenge for Christians today.

Where is the Christian Voice in (and my focus here is very limited) UK politics?  There is surely a place for political involvement by Christians - and in a democracy that should not simply be limited to organisations like The Christian Institute but individuals should be getting involved.

At the recent protest in London regarding the Sexual Orientation Regulations, there were a large number of Christians present.  But in reality only a small percentage of the total number of Christians in London alone, never mind throughout the country.

There is theological thinking to be done on how to engage, which is why this year’s Oak Hill School of Theology on Public Theology is so timely.

But we should not just be thinking, but also doing.  We are not called to build heaven on earth, but we are called positively to influence the world in which God has placed us.

As we continue to reflect on the blessings of Easter, it is interesting to note that the debate surrounding the doctrine of Penal Substitution (PS) rumbles on in the UK.

An almost tabloid headline in the Sunday Telegraph (Christ did not die for sin) trumpeted a strongly anti-PS sermon by Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans.

This was followed by a lengthy piece, The Cross and the Caricatures by NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham, who criticises both Jeffrey John’s position, and also Pierced for Our Transgressions (a book strongly arguing for PS).

The authors of PFOT have responded in turn here (and include links to a number of other responses to NT Wright’s article).

It is deeply upsetting to see the way this issue seems to be dividing ‘brothers’ - and it is sad to reflect on how poorly we measure up to the evangelistic challenge of John 13:35:

“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

But then, it is not as though these kind of arguments should surprise us.  As Paul wrote (2 Timothy 4:4):

“For the time will come when men will not put up with shound doctrine.  Instead, to suit their own desires they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

And the solution, then as now, is to “Preach the Word.”  So I will leave the final word to Jesus (Mark 10:45):

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I’m grateful to my friend AJS for pointing me to this mini-debate from the BBC Today programme between William Lane Craig and Lewis Wolpert. 

It is a classic example of two people who will not accept each other’s presuppositions. 

The scary thought is that a large number of people would fail to recognise that the second person had any presuppositions.  It is ironic in a postmodern world that so many people of ‘no faith’ are still so keen to claim a position of objectivity.

 (William Lane Craig is currently running a ‘Reasonable Faith‘ lecture and debate series.)