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
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 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
of heroes
of the faith
who go from
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,
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.
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.
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.