EAUK.org
Share
It Was Within The Rules! - podcast
Download: It Was Within The Rules! - podcast 
(Note: Right-Click / Save Target As...)
It Was Within The Rules! - PDF
Other FNT's you may be interested in
| ||||
Topic(s) for this FNT
Data Protection Act 1998: By providing your personal details you agree to allow the Evangelical Alliance to contact you by mail, email, telephone or SMS text message in connection with its charitable purposes. The Evangelical Alliance does not make personal data available to external individuals or organisations.
It Was Within The Rules!
15 May 2009
Each day this week the Daily Telegraph has exposed details of how MPs have used the Parliamentary expenses system, in some cases for their own financial advantage. They range from unjustifiable furnishings and borderline illegal mortgage arrangements, to the embarrassment of John Reid's glittery toilet seat and trivial claims for jellied eels and chocolate Santas. Eve Burt, wife of Alistair Burt MP, declared herself 'gob smacked' at the extent of claims and abuses being disclosed.
At the start of the week the regular refrain was that it was all within the rules and the House of Common's Fees Office had authorised the claims. Time and time again MPs toured the TV studies defending their expenditure as acceptable because it had been authorised. Yet the reality seems to be gradually dawning on politicians that being within the rules isn't always enough.
In response to the scandal and revelations about the behaviour of Conservative MPs, David Cameron said, 'Politicians have done things that are unethical and wrong. I don't care if they were within the rules - they were wrong.' And I think most of us would agree with that, because rules do not define the limits of how we should behave.
The current system of expenses for MPs has descended into the present fiasco because the system is clearly flawed. And a key part of this failing is that it rests on the integrity of individual MPs to self regulate their claims. The very presence of rules, and their inability to regulate the behaviour of MPs has shown us their limitation.
Jesus' refrain in the sermon on the mount - 'You have heard that it was said, but I say unto you' - clearly demonstrates that what God requires is not simply slavish obedience to the rules, but a heart that is turned to God. That is what Jesus meant when he said, 'For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.' (Matthew 5:20)
Galatians 3v24-26 shows the same principle at work. The purpose of the law was to show them that they would never match up to God's perfect standard. Their worship of the law led to a misconceived notion of what was right. The Pharisees drew up tighter and tighter rules and missed the point that it was devotion to God rather than mere outward conformity that mattered most.
God sent the law, then, to demonstrate to the Israelites that they could not make it on their own. Abidance by the rules got them nowhere; in fact it blinded them to their need for a fundamental change of heart. One upshot of the expenses scandal seems to be a refreshing awareness that rules alone may not be enough.
Danny Webster, Parliamentary Officer
Latest comments
:
(The views below are the authors', and not necessarily those of the Evangelical Alliance.)
| Written by David Young on 21 May 2009 at 13.32 |
| Except for two things Phil C: You are inserting 'they never broke the law' when the text doesn't. It clearly says the followed Yahweh. The burden of proof rests on those who which to argue that somewhere in the Old Testament is says that someone can follow Yahweh without obeying the law. More importantly, you are lying in your representation of Romans. That or you've never read it. Here is the whole quote in its proper context: "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." The only way that says everyone is a sinner is if it says everyone is justified (i.e. it teaches universalism). Alternatively, and given that the whole letter is written to Christians this is the most obvious explanation, 'all' only refers to Christians. Quoting this part of Romans with the end of the sentence chopped off is the most frequent lie Evangelicals tell about the Bible and anyone who does this ought to be ashamed of themselves, assuming they have the capacity for shame. |
| Written by Phil c on 20 May 2009 at 17.47 |
| David, Y - Romans c3 v23 declares that all have sinned. Well looking at 2 Chronicles ch34v33 ( one of more obscure OT books here) the narrative appears to be about King Josiah removing the "abominations from all the country"... It said he made his subjects diligently serve the Lord their God, but there is no suggestion that anybody here was able to obey all the Law to the letter without once breaking any command. I'm sure they did obediently follow God but that is a different matter from never breaking the Law. |
| Written by David Young on 20 May 2009 at 12.02 |
| With pleasure Brian. 2 Chronicles, 34:33. He not only followed the law, but made everyone else follow it. Of course, this does not run contrary to what Jesus is alleged to have taught, as his division of people into 'righteous', to whom he was not called, and 'sinners' to whom he was, shows. It does, however, run contrary to the idea that everyone is a sinner. Having said that, anyone wishing to show that 'the Bible claims everyone is a sinner' (as I have heard many Christians say over the years) has their work cut out. |
There are 4 additional comments for this page.
Comments for this article are now closed
