The Speak Life Podcast, sharing Jesus in everyday life. What do we value more, persons or power? That's the question at the heart of morality. It's the question that will confront you from the moment you wake to the moment that you sleep each and every day. What will you value today, persons or power? Will you use persons to serve power or will you use power to serve persons? Park that thought and then come with me to London to the Court of Protection on the 21st of June 2019, four days ago as I've recorded this. Now I'm aware that this ruling was overturned yesterday, on Monday, thank God. But let me take you through the decision on the 21st. On Friday, a judge with a long history of pro-abortion activism rules that a pregnant mother must have an abortion. Never mind that her child is at 22 weeks' gestation, never mind that the mother herself does not want the abortion. Never mind that the grandmother, in this case, a former midwife, is pledging to look after the child. Never mind that the family is Roman Catholic and believes fervently in the right to life of this little one. Never mind that the child's own social worker does not want the abortion and is willing to arrange together with the family for the safe birth and care of this child. Nevertheless, Justice Natalie Levin ruled that the unborn child should die because it was in the best interests of the mother. The mother has moderately severe learning difficulties and a mood disorder. And despite saying she wants her child to live, the judge opined, I think she would like to have a baby in the same way that she would like to have a nice doll. In reality, though, Levin said, I think the woman would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed from her care because it would be at that stage a real baby. I imagine that Levin said this while stroking a hairless cat and wearing a coat made entirely of Dalmatians. Just enter into the thought world of Justice Levin just for a second, if you dare. Apparently, it's better to dismember the child in utero while it's not a real baby. I know, we'll we'll have to leave off that pronouncement for now, but let's just go with the judge for a second. What are the alternatives in Levin's way of thinking? You might imagine that one alternative would be for the child to be raised by its extended family, with the grandmother as the chief caregiver and the mother involved as much as her capacity allows. We do have a category for extended family, don't we? I dare say a Nigerian family, the grandmother is Nigerian, I dare say a Nigerian family would have much to teach us about the incredible worth and power of extended families. But having the child raised by its extended family seems to me to be the alternative. Either chop up the baby in utero or entrust it to the wider family who have proved they'll move heaven and earth to care for it. But I honestly don't think that Justice Levin has even considered that alternative. She seems to consider the alternative to abortion to be driving the child to the set of Oliver Twists and leaving it on the doorstep of a Victorian workhouse. But even if that's Levin's alternative to chair tearing the child limb from limb, Natalie, adoption is a fate better than death, wouldn't you say? Please would you say that? Otherwise, I fear greatly for the court of protection over which you preside. Now, Natalie Levin wants us to know that the decision was a difficult one for her. She said, I'm acutely conscious of the fact that for the state to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion. You could say that, Natalie. In fact, you do say that all the time in other settings. You have said that throughout your career. Natalie Leevan QC has spent a career defending organizations like B Pass, the UK's largest abortion provider. And the central plank of her pro-choice position is the bodily autonomy of women. How dare anyone tell a woman what to do? How dare the powerful intrude into a woman's body? How dare anyone interfere with a woman's right to choose, right? Our body, our choice is the slogan, right? It's one that Leevan says she agrees with. But now, once she's in power, now she changes tack. She cries personhood when it suits her, when she has drawn the circle tightly around herself and excluded the persons that she doesn't want in. Then when she gets in power, she doesn't care about personhood or choice or bodily autonomy. Once Levin has assumed power, she was only made a judge earlier this year, by the way. Now she says to a pregnant woman, sit down, shut up, and let your superiors tell you what to do. This is a naked power play. And all in the interests of the greater good, of course. But the greater good of who? The powerful, the NHS Trust, the wider society. Because you know what? Babies are expensive. Fostering and adoption is expensive. But for a thousand quid, we can get rid of that inconvenience for you. No questions asked. And Natalie Leevan, sitting on the bench, enjoying her power, makes a calculation. She says, let's use persons to serve power and to hell with integrity, to hell with her body, her choice, to hell with that child. But this only highlights the fact that the pro-abortion position has not been about choice anyway. It's all about power. And it always has been. Think about it. The pro-abortion argument says it's pro-life men who are interfering with the bodily autonomy of women. That's what they say. But think about the reality for a second. Think about an unwanted pregnancy. Now think about the man who has caused it. What does he want nine times out of ten? Is he pro-life? Not usually. And the pressure of a family who, let's say, does not want the expense or inconvenience or perhaps the scandal of an unwanted pregnancy, what are they pressuring the woman to do? And now consider the state, consider the NHS Trust, consider the Court of Protection, consider Justice Lee, and as she weighs up the costs of having a baby versus not. What does the state want the woman to do? In this case, what is the state forcing her to do? The woman is surrounded by pro-abortion pressure. Women are always surrounded by pro-abortion pressure. But you're telling me it's the pro-life men who are trying to control her? I'll let you in on a secret. Everyone wants control. No matter what your beliefs are, everyone wants power. The default setting of the human heart is to make persons serve power. And Justice Nevan has shown that to you. If persons get in the way of power, Levin will overpower her opponents. She will overpower all opposition while still mouthing the language of choice. But she is not pro-choice. She is pro-power. That's the natural state of everyone. From the man who impregnated this poor woman to the judge in the court of protection, everyone is pro-power, except for two women. The mother herself and the grandmother who is standing for life. They prize persons overpower while Justice Levin attempts to overpower them. Well, thankfully, an appeal court overturns Justice Levin's decision yesterday. And for that we can say thank God. But really, that just means that Justice Levin has been overpowered temporarily. Levin has temporarily lost the power game, but still power is tops. And while we can celebrate a one-off judgment in the Court of Appeals, while ever power is tops, we should fear. Because surely persons must trump power. It has to be persons before power, hasn't it? To say that is to say, in the words of Dr. Zeus, a person is a person no matter how small. It's not power that confers personhood. Personhood is already inviolable. It's not earned. You don't have to be strong enough to be welcome in the human family. You don't have to be rich or clever or strong enough. You are a person and you are as worthy of provision and protection as every other person. You know that, don't you? I hope you know that. But every pro-abortion argument is an argument for power before persons. It says that the unborn must earn their right to be a person. You have to be a certain size or strength or have certain capacities. The pro-abortion position makes personhood dependent on power. And if the little people aren't powerful enough, then the powers that be will eliminate them. That's the pro-abortion argument at its most basic. And the ugliness of Justice Levin's decision merely reflects the ugliness of abortion itself. It is the elimination of the weak by the strong. The pro-life position is the reverse. It's not about taking away power from the powerless woman. It's about enshrining personhood for all. It's about enshrining personhood first so that the powerful cannot ride roughshod over the weak. Now I'm a Christian. I believe it's persons before power because I believe that is literally true. It doesn't require a court to invent that truth only to recognize it. Before there was power, there were persons. Before there was a universe, there was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, persons united in love, persons deferring to one another, persons pouring themselves out for one another, persons who cannot be without the other, persons whose very existence is one of oneness and belonging and mutual love. And then those persons made a world. And that was an exercise of tremendous power, but persons came first, and power serves persons, not the other way around. The alternative is to see that power is ultimate. And every view, other than the Christian view, believes that power is ultimate. Whether we've come from an explosion or from physical laws or chaotic forces or even from a single Unitarian God, every other story of reality says power comes first and persons come along later. But you know that's not right. You know it's power before you know that it's persons before power, right? So come home to the one story in which that precious truth makes sense. Come home to Jesus, who didn't just stand up for the little guy, he became the little guy. He used his omnipotent power to serve persons, to serve you. Here's your one shot at escaping the power play. Come home to Jesus. It's June 25th. I'm Glenn Scrivener, and you're watching Speak Life.
SPEAKER_00Hey! Hello! How is everybody? Just seeing it just again, just my face nice and close to the camera there. Yeah, people like that.
SPEAKER_01People like that. I'll go behind you, you go in front, that's fine. Um hello everybody, I'm Glenn Scrivener. I'm Paul Feasy. And uh together we are just so Scripseasy. And uh yes, uh so we're diving straight in uh to the issue that uh on Friday um there was at the Court of Protection, you couldn't make it up, could you? At the Court of Protection, Justice, Justice, uh Natalie Levin um wanted to force a woman to have an abortion against her wishes. You know, gone gone are the days when the uh the slogan for for pro-choice was safe, legal, and rare. Um I think we want it now to be safe, legal, and mandatory. Um this is, yeah, an absolutely appalling decision, which, praise God, was overturned on Monday uh by the Court of Appeals. Uh they haven't yet given their reason uh for overturning it. Um and hopefully that means that the whole process will kind of uh go on and on um to the to the point where hopefully this child is now safe. But isn't isn't it like sad to think, you know, you've got to get the child over the over the line of 24 weeks before he is safe from being compulsorily aborted.
SPEAKER_00Just Yeah, and also because the i it seems so bizarre, doesn't it, that with uh a mother saying I want the child and uh a grandmother who was a former midwife saying yes, I will help her look after and raise the child, and was it social services as well, saying they thought it was in her best interest to keep the child. Yep.
SPEAKER_01And the judge was like, No, nah. And and the reason given would be there would be psychiatric harm done to the baby. So they're imagining, imagine that the mum who has moderately severe learning difficulties, imagine um that she freaks out at having the child. Um she could then cause harm to that baby. So we better kill it. We don't we don't want harm to come to the body when the child comes to the baby. So let's dismember kill the child, yeah. Um and and and what's so scandalous to me is that um Natalie Levin, uh, QC has been um you know, a barrister, a lawyer representing people like B Pass, the the largest abortion provider in the UK, um, and has very firmly been on the pro-abortion side of things for so long. She ascends to uh to the bench to become a judge and you know, just this year, and then all of a sudden she forces an abortion on somebody. Um so let's let's Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And and and it's a bizarre thing as well, because I mean not only is it yeah, bizarre just because of the story, but um I was saying to you yesterday, like how do you how do you even enforce that against uh if someone is unwilling to actually go through with that, and you're saying we're it's now the law that we're gonna make you do this, yeah. What are they gonna do? They're gonna come to our house and take her away and strap her down? Like what how's that even gonna work?
SPEAKER_01And that that happens in some countries. So um so in China, in order to enforce the one-child policy, um, there's like a tax that they've come up with, and if you want to have a second child, you've got to give the government like something it's something like 20 times the national salary or something, the the average, you know, yearly salary or something, like a a lot of money. Um and there was there was a case a few years back of of um of a woman who and and she was like at like 38 weeks gestation or something, and um they the the authority forced her to have the abortion, they had to hold it down, she was physically harmed, and then that authority um took a photo of her and the aborted child, put it on social media as a warning to anyone who said, you know, if you think you can have a second child, think again.
SPEAKER_02Yep.
SPEAKER_01And everybody was in uproar. And everyone says, Oh, that's outrageous, you know. And then a few years on, here in this country, we want to have forced abortions. Um and, you know, let's let's just go through, you know, a few of the things that uh Justice Levin said in her decision. Um she said, I I think that the woman in question who is pregnant, I think she would like to have a baby in the same way that she would like to have a nice doll. Um and what was interesting to me was that the judge sits in judgment upon the choice of the woman. So basic basically, here is a j judge who believes in pro-choice, but only if you make the right choice. And if you don't make the right choice, she's got a hundred reasons why what you say you chose you chose was misinformed.
SPEAKER_00Yep.
SPEAKER_01And if only you you know knew what I knew, then you would choose rightly. It's just like when you make choice into the the the one metric for the for the morality of something, um, then actually you you have to do some really dodgy things with the person's choice. Um so yeah, here's a woman who chooses to have the child, but really we see that that choice is not the ultimate foundation for the pro-choice argument. I really, I really do think it's power. I really do think it's coercion. Um and then Justice Levin also said, I mean, this this is the the real heart of it for me. She says, I'm acutely conscious of the fact that for the state to order a woman to have a termination where it appears she doesn't want it, you know, it only appears that the woman doesn't want the child. Um but for the state to order the woman to have a termination when she doesn't want it is an immense intrusion. And of course, it's it's the uh it's the reverse of what the pro-choice argument traditionally is, which is my body, my choice. And here comes the state and and says, uh, actually, I don't care about your choice, I'm going to intrude upon upon your body. Um in in the most sensational way. And you just think, yeah, I I don't think choice is at the heart of the pro-abortion argument. I I do think it's power. I I really do. Um And then the judge said that she believed the woman would suffer more distress if the baby was taken away rather than if it was terminated. I I take it that being killed is is more stressful um than than other things. I I I do take it, you know.
SPEAKER_00And well, and also that there there's this suggestion there, isn't it, that this lady, as it's 22 weeks into the pregnancy, that this this this girl is just gonna have an abortion and just up and away the next day, just right and dandy, as if there will be no effect at all. Yeah. I mean we're we're talking about that it's gonna be a uh an in at some at least some form of induced labour and removal at that stage, because of the stage of development you're at. Yeah. Um to suggest that that in no way is gonna be stressful or traumatic.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00And and also I mean they're saying, oh, she's got the mental age of it was saying anywhere between six to nine. Yeah. It was different on different places, it was hard to I mean, and again, that's hard to pin down. I mean if you know any nine-year-olds, yeah, they're all at different stages anyway.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00But you know, I said I've got a seven-year-old and she understands what a baby is and like, you know, the the the the process of you have a pregnancy and give birth to a baby. Um so you know, if this if this woman is at that kind of age of mental development, there's still gonna be this thing where she's going, well, what's happened to the baby and where's the baby? and you know, there's is she's not just gonna forget about it, is she? No. Wake up and be like, oh. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And that's always Yeah, and and but that's right at the heart of the UK's abortion laws, like the 1967 Abortion Act says that it it amounts to abortion on demand because all you've got to do is prove that there's some kind of harm to the mother. And of course, the harm that is um most usually cited is psychological harm. But that is to say that there is psychological harm to having the child, but there's no psychological harm to having uh an abortion. Like like this this is an incredibly traumatic thing.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Um and the regret that people have after having abortions, but that is not weighed up. Um no one is weighing up the trauma of having the baby versus the trauma of the abortion. The trauma of the abortion is just scrubbed from the equation. Um so yeah, this this idea that, you know, having an abortion is like having your appendix out is is a nonsense. Um and then, you know, the the the judge says that the the woman would suffer more distress if the baby was taken away because it would be a real baby, as opposed to in utero, when it's not a real baby. And then it seems like she, off the cuff, um was was trying to explain her thinking there because real baby, where does that come from? Um and and then Justice Levin said, pregnancy, although real to her, doesn't have a baby outside her body she can touch. And you're like, what what? Why and what she's doing is she's she's scrambling around trying to explain why the baby inside the womb is not a real baby, um, but the baby outside kind of is. But then she's using language of the baby as a pregnancy. You know, of course the baby is not a pregnancy. Pregnancy is what you have when you have a baby. Um, but using the language of the baby as though it's a pregnancy, and then she says, pregnancy, although real to her, doesn't have a baby outside her body she can touch. And you just you just see that when you when you fail to name things correctly, language breaks down, logic breaks down, it is literally madness. Literally madness, this pro-abortion position. Um so you know, pray praise God it was overturned by the Court of Appeals. But um But it does it does seem to me that why is it being overturned? You know, uh is are we recognizing the right to life of the unborn so that it's being overturned? Or are there other factors at play in in terms of why it's being overturned? Because what's what's gonna happen ongoingly? What's gonna happen with the next case that comes up? We don't know, but that's that's why we've gotta come back to it's it's persons who are important more than power. The personhood of you and I is inviolable, it is a dignity that that cannot be granted by courts, it can it can only be recognized by courts. Um and it is not something to be earned because of our own strengths. It's gotta be something that comes first, and then you use power in the service of persons. Unfortunately, our whole you know, our whole sinful flesh is about using other persons to serve my power. Um and that really, I think, is the the the pro-abortion position. It's using persons to serve power, and if persons are not powerful enough, then the powerful can overrule and eliminate them. Um So what do we need to do? Let's well let's return to Trinitarian theology. Let's let's return to there's Father, Son, and Spirit who love one another and are bound together in these relationships of self-giving love before they ever exercise power towards the world. We have come from persons, and those persons then exercise power. Power first, and then sorry, per persons first and then power. And this is the one world view, the one world view that actually has persons first. Love comes first, and then power. And actually we use power to serve love, we don't use persons, we don't use love to so serve power. Umly really when people come back to Christ, people come back to the true triune God. Only only then, I think, will we really overturn this state. This power-hungry view that persons have to prove themselves. Only then can Dr. Zeus's words really be true. A person's a person no matter how small. Once we come back to Christ, I think we'll start to see a person's a person no matter how small. And then the pro-life position kind of comes out. Jess Hancock has said these stories are like something out of an Orwellian nightmare, I guess. She was going to say, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. For the state to step in like this is is just bizarre. It used to be safe, legal, and rare, and now it's safe, legal, and mandatory. If the state so determines. Really scary stuff. But lest lest you think that we just want to line up on the right side of the political divide and uh and sort of show our pro-life credentials because somehow we're politically on the right. Um actually, let's kind of switch gears now to um to have a go at the ascendant right at the moment, politically speaking. Um because the other thing that was uh in the papers um I think it was on Friday as well, was uh the argument between Boris Johnson and uh his girlfriend whose name I forget now. No, I don't know what it was. I don't know who she is. Um but uh Carrie Simons. Carrie Simons or Simmons. Um so they had they had this massive bust up on the eve of Boris Johnson versus Jeremy Hunt for the Tory Party leadership and therefore for the for the Prime Ministership. Um and so there's there's lots of issues going on there.
SPEAKER_00When did we ever think we'd be saying those words? I don't know.
SPEAKER_01Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt. Badly, yeah. It could have been Gove. It was this close to being Bojo versus Gove again. Yeah. Round two.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And it's these it's these two who, you know, will be, you know, the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. And so now the question of character comes. Um because uh it's obviously it's obviously financially and politically motivated for his neighbors in Camberwell to leak this fight to the press, you would assume. Well Yeah, you'd ass yeah, you would assume and so I'm sure I'm sure they've been, you know, paid for this. And the police themselves came around to Boris Johnson's um flat uh that he's been sharing with Carrie Simmons, and no charges, everything's fine, um, but there was a lot of yelling, there was smashed things, um, she yelled out get off and get out a number of times. Um and of course he has shacked up with her because he's left his wife for her, um, and this is not his first infidelity. Um and then the question becomes is that relevant? Is that relevant to the Tory leadership tussle? Is that relevant for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? Um the fact that he has been unfaithful to his wife does that matter?
SPEAKER_00Um I don't know, what do you think? Hmm, yeah, I mean it's it's a kind of question that people have raised before, I guess, in other s situations um about whether, you know, does someone's private life make a difference to how they do their job, you know, and and some people's attitudes very much, isn't it, that um it as long as they do their job and it does what goes on in their private life doesn't interfere with that. Um and you know, as long as it's not not anything illegal or stuff like that, does it does it matter? Um And I think like as as Christians, we're in a I mean w maybe we w maybe it depends, do you think, of what the position is. So I mean we would obviously say if we were thinking about someone who's gonna be our pastor, you know, we would say it totally matters what your character is like at home. Yes. You know, uh uh behind closed doors, you know. You you you you should be a a good upright person. Yes. Um and not just turning up on Sunday doing the things you're supposed to do and then chomming off home.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Um and I completely I completely see that. Um and I would be bothered by any conduct that wasn't like that. Um do I care about the shop assistant who serves me in Tesco's? Not really. Yeah. Um if I'm honest. Do you care about the head teacher of your child's school? Well, that's yeah, that's another one, isn't it? So what or just a t a any teacher? So how would I feel if I was out? So if on the weekend I s I see my child's teacher and they're just uh absolutely wasted off their face.
SPEAKER_01Um why are you seeing them absolutely wasted? In what setting are you while this is happening?
SPEAKER_00My work as a street pastor. Alright. Handing out bottles of water. Yeah, yeah. Okay, alright. But yeah, I I don't and but then there are questions there, aren't there, about so again, that's different to the church thing, isn't it? Or is it, you know, I'm just because if they rock up a Monday to Friday absolutely sober and do their job fine above reproach, it doesn't matter what they do on Saturday and Sunday, yes, or Friday night, you know. Um so like in a church setting, we definitely see it works. Now, for someone like Boris Johnson though, um the the kind of role you're gonna be in, well let's hope he's not in. But we're I mean it's it's less it doesn't matter what you get, it's it's alternative. It doesn't look good anyway, does it? But if he gets in, um I think character does matter. Because and and like if someone is I don't know how which wife he's on now. Well he's not on a wife now, hasn't he? I don't know how many he's had. Yeah. But he's he's definitely had a few kind of infidelities regard, you know. And everything would say to me as I'm examining that, I would say, well, there's something in your character which is not to be trusted. You're you're not someone of integrity.
SPEAKER_01Um especially like you you count on him fulfilling his promises. So with with politicians, you you do you are literally taking them at their word, they promise certain things, they have to deliver on certain things. And so, like looking at their life and seeing, okay, well, you you actually before God and a whole congregation and before your wife, you promised this stuff and you didn't come through on it, you know, it's it's it's fairly relevant at that point, you know, whether you can trust the promises that they m they make. Um and I think to the to the degree that you have to trust me, I don't have to trust the Tesco, you know, checkout person.
SPEAKER_00No.
SPEAKER_01Um but I do have to trust my teacher a bit more. We do have to trust our politicians quite a bit.
SPEAKER_00Do you think and I don't know the ins and outs of Boris's life, do you think it would make a difference? 'Cause we say you stood up and you made these promises and you've not come through on them. In there's a there's a sense in which none of us come through on those things in the way we should. Do you think there would be a difference if Boris Johnson appeared like he was in any way repentant for the things he does? Totally. Totally. Like if there there would be a big difference between someone who who was shown publicly to have, you know, uh had some kind of infidelity but was repentant and stuff compared to someone who's just Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Absolutely, absolutely. Um because character matters and and one part of character is admitting when you're wrong and and being repentant, being humble. Um yeah, that would wouldn't that be something.
SPEAKER_00All of which disqualifies you for being politicians, doesn't it?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. Yeah. But I mean the the argument is often made like in the States when they you know they say we're electing a president, not a pastor.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_01And whenever whenever that argument which which is sound as far as it goes, but whenever that argument is deployed, it's usually because the person you want to win is a bit of a rascal.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Not naming any name. Not naming any name. Not pointing any fingers.
SPEAKER_01But there's a there's another blonde-haired leader of a nation um who's also been unfaithful and is on his whatever nth wife and has cheated on many wives while they're pregnant, cheated on them with you know, Playboy Centerfold, etc. Um, does that matter? And I I I would like to say that the argument that wants to defend that and says, ah no, but if we get the right person in place, they can wield power for our good projects, you know, and if they wield power for the good, um then it doesn't matter about their character. And I want to say at that point, well, look out. Because I think that is using that is using persons to serve power. And I think we want to use power to serve serve persons. I think the person comes first, and the person is important.
SPEAKER_00And is there an and and is there a naivety uh you know, if if we're Christians, is there a naivety in in thinking that you can divorce someone's you know, the the the role they do from their character? Yeah. You know, say as long as I get the job done, doesn't matter what goes on over there, yeah. Like, as Christians, surely we should we should recognise that like our our very being, you know, the the fact we are sinful flesh plays into everything. Yeah. Even the the good things we do are part of our character. We we take that with us everywhere. You don't turn up at work and just become someone else. So there's always gonna be some overlap. Yeah. And and so your your character is always gonna influence the way you do your role. Yeah. Yeah. You know, you're if if if if in your private life you're happy to completely, you know, screw everyone over, um it's probably quite likely in the office you're gonna be prepared to screw everyone over and you know, it it it I don't see how you could compartmentalize that and say, oh well it'll be fine over there, but it because it won't get into this area of life. Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Um I mean God is gracious and he has used very compromised individuals to do good things in the world. He's used people who have led totally duplicitous lives and managed to work good through them.
SPEAKER_00And and even and even to the extent that not just bad people, but people who are active enemies of God's people.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00In the Bible, you see, yeah, you know, they're like like people who are who have taken the Israelites into exile or opposing kings, and yet God has used them for his purposes.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Um but it'd be hard to but safely would have voted for that if they know and you know Cyrus is not then you know invited to come and lead Israel and to become a Levite. Um all that. So, yeah, persons before power. And I think if we really grasp that, I I think it I think it would have um it would bite both on the political left and on the political right. I think persons before power on the political left would say would push you towards pro-life, because it would push you towards honouring personhood and not just overpowering the little guy. Um but also it it bites against the political right as well, because it it would say, well, don't just use power to get the job done, but honor persons. Um and therefore it it does matter. The cat character matters in politics. And and I, you know, I I don't know how to weigh it against various other things. I don't know like how you would weigh Donald Trump versus other Republican candidates, how you would weigh Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump against Joe Biden, Donald Trump against, you know, um, whatever other alternatives that there are out there. But to simply say that it doesn't matter, that is false. It's it must be false. Our lives are meant to be fruit. We are trees and we bear fruit. Jesus is constantly saying that. Um He doesn't say that we are these neutral bricklayers who got out who get out, and it doesn't matter what we did behind closed doors, we can just build a tower. It's that we are we are trees and organically fruit comes out of our person. Um person matters. Um so uh uh had a question from Dan Dwelly. Theresa May was a churchgoer. Uh didn't didn't help her much. Well, but I mean her her character uh people did praise, didn't they? I mean, even even though a lot of people said, you know, okay, incompetent, didn't didn't really get the didn't get the job done. She was lovely. She was lovely. But I do take heart from the fact that every Sunday she was in church actually saying sorry to God for stuff. And you just you just imagine, can you imagine on the next day in the cabinet meeting, you know, going around the room and and just everybody taking turns in saying, I've sinned before God and before others in thought and word and deed, you know. Um, so I I take heart from the f from that fact, and Dan says, and I think Hunt is as well. Is that a good thing? Yeah. You know, I I I think that definitely is a good thing.
SPEAKER_00Um Yeah, I mean and but then it will depend as well when it in what is you know, there are some people who who who almost would say they could put aside their Christianity when they walk into the office in order to do the job in the way they think they should be doing it. And I don't know what Hunt is like, you know. Um you know, is that the case for him? Yeah. Or would he go in with some kind of Christian values? I don't know.
SPEAKER_01All all else being equal, yeah, I think it's a good thing. It's a it's a point in their favour, I would say, as a Christian. Um but it's not the be all and end all, and they're and you know, I can I can well imagine circumstances in which um a churchgoer and an atheist are up against each other, and I can well imagine circumstances of of of voting for the atheist, of course.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, and uh and also like I I well uh I mean although I I would say maybe being a churchgoer is a point in favour, like I'm also quite hesitant just to say like, oh well this one goes to church, therefore um because that you know lots of people go to church and it's just a Sunday thing they do, and you know, there's there's that there is that nominal Christianity, and I don't know what Jeremy Hunt's Christianity is like, so I'm not gonna comment on that. So um without knowing them and what their faith is actually like, yeah, you know, having met someone like um Tim Farron actually seemed like a very personal, you know, personable guy and actually talked about his faith very clearly. Um and and I and as I listened to him, I thought, here's someone who actually clearly loves Jesus and wants to honour Jesus in a very difficult field and has faced the flag for it. But that won't be the case for everyone who goes to church and is a Christian and gets into politics.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, absolutely. Uh Lee Fernie has said the summary list for recruiting someone for paid Christian ministry is character, convictions, competence, and chemistry. That's often reversed in politics. Very good insights. So in politics it's chemistry, then competence, then convictions, and finally character. Um within the church, it's character, convictions, competence, and chemistry. Good point. Uh Paige Treadway Wright says also Cyrus wasn't on the ballot. That complicates things a bit. Yep, we didn't have to vote for Cyrus. Um Lee came back and said, even Cyrus or Darius was pragmatic and employed Daniel, who had great character, so that he wouldn't suffer any loss. So um, yeah, so character did did matter within the regime. Um, and character was identified and was and was useful. Um Amy Burdett Farrer uh made this great point. Uh good theologians um as well have this sort of split thing, and I was I was I had the same thought in mind. She said, think about Karl Barth and his sinful behavior at home. Um he had an at least emotionally adulterous relationship with with his secretary, who he even moved into the family home. Um and it was at least emotionally adulterous. The the details are murky. But Amy says, Does that mean that we ignore all of his work? I don't think so, but we have to recognise that the fruit or character of someone's life is more important for their own personal life, and only their good works will benefit others if that is the case. Um so yeah, it's a it's a complicated it's a complicated thing, that personal private um split. Uh Dan Dwelly says, uh no scandals as far as I know for May. Um Yep, yeah. Which is great, isn't it? That's you know, it's because it does it does wonders for the office of Prime Minister if there are no scandals during this particular Prime Minister's stay. Um, because you kn our c our communities and our cultures run on trust, and every single scandal breaks down trust. Um and so the you know the damage that is done by a a leader with poor character who makes us distrust, that damage will go on for for decades. Like it it really will. And and there can't there can be short-term gain um for some people. And maybe maybe your guy is in power right now and you're getting some short-term wins. Um there is a much longer-term um game to be playing, and that's all about trust. And if promises are broken and and if scandals erupt, then that that trust is just so hard to to to restore. Um Yeah, Dan Willie said uh Jeremy Hunt commissioned the recent Christian persecution review. That's true.
SPEAKER_00That is true. I did see that actually. Um and yeah, he was kind of flagging that up quite quite a lot recently, wasn't he? Which has kind of slipped my mind. So, you know, that's you know seems like a positive in his thing, you know.
SPEAKER_01So who knows?
SPEAKER_00So, yes, who knows who we're gonna get? Hunt or bojo. Um at the end of the day, I mean you you you you just want you want someone who's who's gonna have integrity and someone who is gonna put the needs of others before their own selfish desires, yeah. Ultimately, you know, not just doing what's easy for them and benefits them. Yeah. Um and I and and again, I don't know the two of them. If I had to pick between the two on on which one it'd be more like that, I'd probably end up going for Hunt.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_00But, you know, looking at the issues there were a few years ago with the NHS, I know a lot of people who I know personally who are very unhappy with the way a lot of that went, and I think the NHS is a really important thing for us in this country. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Um so you know, whichever way it goes, it's not like in the first century the Apostle Paul was writing to people, and Nero is on the throne, people. Nero! You know, and he's he's just like, well, the gospel is going forward, churches are being planted, you know, people are coming to Christ. You know, he was a person of hope and optimism, even when you know, a guy who was a little bit compromised was was in the in the in the seat of power. So um let's yeah, let's hold these things in the perspective that they ought to be in. Dan Dwelly, hashtag Glenn for Prime. Is that Amazon Prime? Boris didn't look that bad, actually. Glenn for Prime Minister. Well, thank you, Dan. I've got one vote. One vote.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I think you say the thing you've got to remember with all this, like, and it's we've said it about Brexit and all that stuff as well. Like, at the end of the day, God is on the throne, n none of it was taken by surprise, and and and you you never know. When when you you know when we read like particularly Old Testament stories and there were these terrible kings on the throne, and they were on the thrones for years, you know, you've got to think those people they didn't know necessarily going through it, oh, here's a big picture and there's a plan, and it's all work it's all gonna work out in this way. Yeah, it must have just been quite terrible at times. Yeah, and and the reality is like actually God was working through that even if they couldn't see it. And even if we end up with someone who's terrible, or even if you're the kind of person who looks at what's going on in other countries, you know, where there's you know kind of people in leadership and you go, Oh, this is terrible. God is still in control of it, God is not surprised by it, he's still working, he's still on the throne, he's gonna use that even in ways we can't see, yeah. Um, and may never know until we come out the other side, but Jesus for Prime Minister.
SPEAKER_01Jesus for Prime Minister, he's got my vote. And literally he is, because what does Prime Minister mean?
SPEAKER_00He's got his cabinet ready. What, Peter James and John?
SPEAKER_01Sitting on his right and on his left in thrones. Um but yeah, Prime Minister means chief servant. Yes. Who is? Yeah. Who is the Prime Minister?
SPEAKER_00Yeah. Jesus. Yeah, exactly. Rejoice. Greatest of all the servants.
SPEAKER_01Rejoice, rejoice. So Glenn for Prime, I like that as a hashtag. Um speaking of Prime, uh speaking of Amazon. Uh yes. On Amazon Prime uh this month, uh they have released a new show called Good Omens. And they've made that from another novel by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, um, which is uh A kind of a uh it seemed I I mean Terry Pratchett for me is sort of teen based. Would you say would you say his his audience isn't really reading?
SPEAKER_00You probably start reading him when you're like twelve, thirty. I knew some people who read it. I only read like one or two and it it it it never really quite grabbed me, but I read Hogfather and that's it. But yeah.
unknownYeah.
SPEAKER_00I think I read the one about death.
SPEAKER_01Okay. They're all they've all got death, aren't they? Like in a disc world and all that. They're fun. You know, they're fun. But you know, he's an atheist. It's all about death. But literally, that that is what it's like. Like death is Lord in in these you know universes that Terry Pratchett creates.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Um and yet it's he's very impish about it and um jolly as the world goes up in flames. It's that sort of thing. So Good Omens has been made into a TV series, six episodes on Amazon Prime. It came to my attention really mainly um because a Christian group in the States got a petition together of 20,000 people wanting them to cancel Good Omens because it would um make people dabble in the occult and things like this. Um, but they petitioned Netflix to take it down. Well, actually it's on Amazon Prime.
SPEAKER_00And I don't know if you saw Netflix's response. Netflix just tweeted out, okay, we won't make any more. Which I thought was brilliant.
SPEAKER_01Well, we'll see we'll see my video from from last night, which mentions some of the some of the comeback um from some of those guys. Um but let's let's let's have a look at uh my video from last night on uh on good omens, bad theology. You know, religious groups have an uncanny, somewhat say miraculous ability to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to public relations. Uh as a Christian minister, my heart sank when I saw this headline. Thousands petition Netflix to cancel Amazon Prime's good omens. US Christian group condemns Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's story as making Satanism appear normal, but petitioned the wrong company. That's right, it's on Amazon Prime. They petitioned Netflix. You know, no matter what kind of PR that Christian groups attempt, they only seem to be able to pull off the bad kind of PR. And at the same time, Amazon Prime has shown the way, turning this gap into good PR. They tweeted out, hey Netflix, we'll cancel Stranger Things if you cancel good omens. Well played Amazon Prime. And of course, here's what this story made me do. It's what I imagine thousands and thousands of people did once they read about the petition. It made me want to watch the show even more. So I did, and I enjoyed it hugely. Uh especially the performances by uh Michael Sheen and David Tanner. They were delicious. Get thee behind me, foul feet. After me.
SPEAKER_00We have nothing whatsoever in common. I don't even like you.
SPEAKER_01You do. Did it normalize Satanism? No, I don't think so. Uh, but it did do something because everything influences our spiritual views all the time, right? Everything does. Love Island influences my spiritual views. Not that I've ever seen a single minute of it. I I guess I'm a little bit like the petitioners in that sense, having not seen the program that I objected to. Telletubies influences my spiritual views. Both of them fortify my belief in diabolical powers. You know, probably even more than good omens does. But listen, I suggest to you that the influence of good omens will not be to normalize hell for people. It will perhaps trivialize hell. But mostly it will stigmatize heaven and it will leave the viewer with a warm, foxy, but ultimately groundless humanism. But you know, you'd have to actually watch the show to know that that's what its effect would be. And given that the authors of the petition didn't even know which streaming service the show was on, I'm gonna guess they hadn't the foggiest clue about its content. Now, of course, good omens has some major theological errors, and of course, it trivializes serious matters and casts aspersion on the Bible and on the character of God from the beginning to the end of it. But I'm not gonna ask or expect anyone to pull the show because when the Bible speaks of God's name being blasphemed among the nations, the Bible does not blame the nations. Blasphemer's gonna blaspheme, as Taylor Swift once almost sang. But Romans 2 says God's name is blasphemed among the nations because of you, people of God. You see, we are the problem. We are the reason that people trivialize spiritual powers and cast aspersions on the character of God. We cause blasphemy in the way that we carry the name of God out into the world. Of course, Gaiman and Pratchett have faulty theology, but they have faulty theology because we have preached faulty theology, we have lived faulty theology, we have embodied faulty theology. How so? Well, let me give you uh a flavor of good omens. I'll try not to give away too much, too much more than the trailer does, but um there will be one small spoiler here. So if you want to watch the show absolutely spoil There we go. Yeah. We don't uh we won't give it all away. So uh I'm just putting in the comment section now a link to uh that video from last night. Um so you can check out uh the rest of it. You haven't seen good ones.
SPEAKER_00No, I've not seen it yet. I saw the I saw it kind of advertised on uh Prime, yeah, I think, and I thought, oh, and I added it to the watch list. Yeah. Um then discovered a few days later clearly I should have been petitioning against it. So it's clearly a terrible human being.
SPEAKER_01So now, you know, I mean it mocks God. It does. And mocking God is um bad, right? Yep. Um but I I I I'm not sure that I expect those outside the church to do anything but mock God. Um given my doctrine of humanity. Um so mocker's gonna mock, blasphemer's gonna blaspheme. Um but yeah, my my main thing is what Pratchett and Gaiman are parodying is actually what the church has been preaching, and actually I do think the church has been preaching a funny view um of the end of the world, and they are making fun of that. They're you know, they're what's what's the um what are those uh novels that Tim Lahaye and someone else you know that they are parodying that kind of thing view of Armageddon. Yeah. Which is bizarre because you go to the Bible and you read Armageddon and it's all build-up and it's all saber rattling, and then nothing happens. Like Jesus just comes and he just wins and you know, evil is just kind of cast away. You know, in is in 2 Thessalonians he he overcomes them by the uh by the breadth of his mouth and the splendour of his coming. You know, the the eventual punch-up between good and evil is like a punch-up between light and darkness. It's like, yeah, gone. See you later, Darkness. Um, and there's and there's an unhealthy view of heaven and hell as the great dichotomy with Earth in the middle. Um, and that that's what good omens is based on. There's heaven and hell having a punch-up, and earth is stuck in the middle, and earth is just a battleground, and earth's gonna go up in smoke. And so the heroes in good omens are the humans who manage to save the world from these warring factions. And so those who are standing up for peace on earth and standing up for the world, they are the heroes in good omens. And I I just want to sit down with the makers of the program and say, um, actually, in the Bible, those who are on the side of Earth, um, they yeah, they are the good guys. But those who are on the side of Earth, that that is heaven. And the only reason heaven ever has a punch-up with hell is that hell is trying to destroy the world. Um so actually, to to have a great punch-up, or to have at least a battle between heaven and hell, is not to destroy the world, it is to save the world. Um and that there's just so there's so much that's wrong in good omens. But I think the origin of where they go wrong is the church. So I think the first the first um critique that we should make is not to critique the theology of non-Christians. Um because of course their theology is gonna be erroneous, but I think the first people to critique um are the Christians who allow people like Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman to ridicule things. Uh, because the Bible itself is not ridiculous. But what we have made the Bible into is ridiculous. So, that's my basic thing. If you want to see more about it, uh then um on YouTube we'll I guess we'll bring it out soon-ish. Maybe, maybe today or tomorrow.
SPEAKER_00Everybody is on YouTube already. You mean it's on YouTube, on Facebook, sorry. On Facebook we'll bring it out.
SPEAKER_01So it's already uh on YouTube, it's in the comments section uh of this Facebook Live. Um check it out, and do please, um, in YouTube, um, can you hit both subscribe and click the bell? The bell is really important because subscribe means nothing anymore. Um subscribe um just because you're subscribed to us um doesn't mean that YouTube are gonna show you our videos. Um YouTube are gonna show you whatever the algorithm you know dictates. Um so unless you hit the bell button, you're really not gonna learn about our new videos. So do subscribe to us, that'll help us get um uh further up in the algorithm. Do click the bell, that'll help you to see the videos, uh, and do share it with your friends. That'll be great.
SPEAKER_00Yep.
SPEAKER_01Brilliant. Um, well, we'll we've got some more comments, uh, we can uh deal with those um in the old-fashioned way. Um via typing on the keyboard. Uh we shall do that. But uh thanks so much for uh joining us in the comments, you guys, on Facebook Live. We do this uh every Tuesday at 1 p.m. So um if you only ever catch up uh on this on the podcast, that's when we're live. That's when you can catch us and see us in all our Yeah, I was wondering where you're gonna go with that. Yeah. Just see us. You can see us on Facebook Live, um, but uh you can hear us on our podcast, you can watch us on YouTube, and um yeah.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, lots of lots of more uh content coming out, including the response video, yeah, to Philosophy Tube, yeah. Uh which is a channel on YouTube, um, and it's worth checking out. I mean, well, I mean it it is worth checking out. Um if you uh very high production values. Um there's something a little bit Black Mirror-esque about the one we watched, you know. It might be a bit dark for some people. Yes. Um it's always dark, but yeah, for what I've seen always it's quite dark.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Um, but uh he the his in his video he's talking about the abortion debate. He's looking uh particularly at the violinist kind of uh what do you call it? Violinist analogy, yeah, which has been around for years and years and kind of picks that apart a little bit um and kind of has a bit of a go at it. And actually, we're gonna be doing a bit of a response to that. Umsing the wisdom of Dave Brennan. Dave Brennan, so actually, yes, who who's from Brefos and who's interviewed here, and then you can see the whole interview, you're gonna be using bits from that interview. You can see the whole interview on YouTube and on Facebook already. So um I think on YouTube, if you go to our go to our channel and look for a voice for the voiceless interview with Dave Brennan, you should find the interview there. Um I don't know how easy it is to find it. It's a bit more tricky on Facebook to find videos from a while back, but YouTube is the the easiest place to find it.
SPEAKER_01Go on YouTube, subscribe, click the bell, and uh yeah, and stay tuned for that response video and a whole bunch of other content. Uh, but that order do us for today.
SPEAKER_00Yep.
SPEAKER_01Thank you very much for your company and uh see you next week. Yep, take care. We'll see you soon. Bye.