Austrian Horror mp3
Few news stories these days have the power to shock us. Whether it’s teenagers being stabbed in South London or genocide in Africa, we think we’ve seen and heard it all before. Yet, this week’s revelations from Austria will probably have changed all that.
How could something like this happen? What possessed Josef Fritzl to keep his own daughter locked up for 24 years and to father her 7 children? His actions were obviously extreme, but it’s possible that two factors in our Western society may have contributed to these events.
Firstly, we have reduced morality to our own making. What I do is up to me and no one else has a right to tell me I’m wrong. The problem here though, is that if we say morality is up to the individual, there will always be people like Fritzl who create their own twisted sense of right and wrong and who think that their actions are justifiable. As Fritzl said this week, “Why should I feel sorry? I cared well for them. I meant well with Elisabeth.” Surely this shows that we need a moral guideline that goes beyond what the individual thinks is acceptable.
Secondly, as Germaine Greer has argued, society continues to inappropriately sexualise children. Just this week, questions were raised about a photograph in Vanity Fair of 15 year old Miley Cyrus that many people felt was sexually provocative. Similarly Tesco have caused outrage over the selling of a padded bra aimed at girls as young as 7. Ken Livingstone, in relation to his own sexual morality, rather famously said, “I don’t think anyone in this city will be shocked by what two consenting adults do, as long as you don’t include children, animals or vegetables.” But while we will all agree with Ken that sexual behaviour should never include children, society seems to blur the lines about what precisely that means.
What seems clear then, is that in reducing morality to our own making, we’re never quite sure where to draw the lines - and even if we think we know where the lines are, we can often get it wrong. That is exactly why we need outside help – God’s – to define what’s right and wrong, and why we need to humbly admit that actually, he does know best. If we define our own morality we are effectively playing God, thinking that we know better than him. And the Austrian case demonstrates the disastrous consequences this attitude can bring.
Susannah Clark, Evangelical Alliance
Download 'Austrian Horror' as an mp3

Open the PDF (Text Only) Version
Looking for leadership resources? Look no further than http://www.eauk.org/slipstream/, a suite of leadership resources from the Evangelical Alliance, to encourage, equip and network leaders across the denominations and generations.
Joel Edwards, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance has recently published a new book, An Agenda for Change. More than just a book, An Agenda for Change is the renewed mission and vision of the Evangelical Alliance - a bold call to evangelicals to unite to change society. Find out more at: http://www.eauk.org/a4c/
Latest comments
:
(The views below are the authors', and not necessarily those of the Evangelical Alliance.)
| Written by David Young on 15 May 2008 at 21.49 |
God cannot provide a bedrock for anything. He does not exist. The result of this is that you cannot differentiate between 'believing in God' and 'God'.
Please stop pretending that there is something called 'the message of the New Testament'. If you want it to, the New Testament teaches that entering the kingdom of heaven is conditional on works, faith, faith and works, or being elected. Choose and then massage the rest of it into line with your beliefs (aka 'hermeneutics').
The point is, morality is a human creation and won't become something else no matter how much you would like it to be.
On the subject of what atheism cannot do, I can extend the list substantially. It cannot give the world a power station the size of a ballpoint pen that runs on sand and provides all the world's energy needs forever without pollution. It cannot win a game of chess in one move. It cannot cure cancer with a single pill. Neither can anything else, including people's imaginary friends. |
| Written by Jethro on 15 May 2008 at 14.10 |
I wonder if David Young is right in thinking that "a person who unrepentantly does not find the existence of God convincing is, according to Christianity, worthy of punishment in everlasting hell (described by Jesus as a place of non-stop burning)"?
For instance, if he has been fed such an unacceptable version of Christianity that he cannot in all conscience believe in it, what is he to do? "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Does God tell him to ignore his God-given sense of right and wrong in order to save his own skin? |
| Written by Justin Thacker on 15 May 2008 at 10.19 |
David writes: "a person in Mr Fritzl's position could conceivably believe in Jesus and as a result be considered by the Christian deity to be righteous." As I've said, you may well have been taught that, but it is not what the New Testament teaches. "By their fruit you will recognise them...Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my father in heaven." (Matt 7:21, see also Matt 18:6-7) In no conceivable way, could Fritzl be considered to be doing the will of God. The theology you seem to be interacting with David is antinomianism, but it is NOT new testament Christianity. I apologise if this is the theology you were taught at bible college, or by pastors you've encountered, but my job here is to defend biblical christianity, not warped interpretations of it.
In addition, I'm not saying that 'believing in God' provides a bedrock for ethics. I'm saying that 'God' provides a bedrock for ethics - an entirely different point.
Finally, you state, "at this point in the history of our species, we have reached a global consensus on what is ethically 'wrong'". Firstly, this statement is highly contentious. Many cultures consider female circumcision acceptable, others consider it wrong. There's not much of a global consensus there. The same applies to abortion, which of course, depending on your viewpoint, is a form of child abuse.
But even if it were true that the globe had a reached a consensus on ethical issues, how on earth could you know that our particular consensus is the right one, and isn't there more than a whiff of imperialism in saying that many previous cultures were wrong, whereas ours has finally sorted out right from wrong.
The bottom line is the one hinted at by Jethro. If we're going to acknowledge that some things are universally wrong (whether or not particular cultures recognise that) then the only possible foundation for such universaly morality is God. If, on the other hand, and as you seem to be suggesting, morality is merely what our culture, even global culture, happens to currently think then: a. we can never think that anything is universally wrong. b. we have no right to tell anyone else they're wrong as morality is merely of our own making, which means you shouldn't even express moral judgements about Christianity.
You may not like it, but that is where the logic of atheism has to take you. |
There are 25 additional comments for this page.
Comments for this article are now closed
Subscribe to for those comments!
|
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. Evangelical Alliance does not make personal data available to other individuals or organisations, except under confidentiality agreement to the Alliance's Local Evangelical Fellowships.
|
Holidays PDF 1 Aug 2008 What do our holidays reveal about us or, more importantly, the God we follow?
| Holidays 1 Aug 2008 What do our holidays reveal about us or, more importantly, the God we follow?
| Mosley's Morality 25 Jul 2008 FNT reader: What do you think of what Max Mosley did? Was it wrong?
Their friend: Well, I think it’s fine – I mean I wouldn’t do it myself – but, as Mosley said, it’s none of anyone else’s business what consenting adults get up to in private.
| Causing Offence 18 Jul 2008 This week, the Archbishop of Canterbury was in the headlines again for apparently being worried about causing offence to Muslims. Of course, the truth was somewhat different.
| Jesus Christ is on the street weeping 10 Jul 2008 "Jesus Christ is on the street weeping.
Did you see the newspaper that said the church is navel-gazing while our children are being slaughtered and killed?" These were the words of the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, in a speech last weekend.
|
|
Full Friday Night Theology Index All previous archived FNT articles listed in date order
|
|

|