1. If a little invisible virus causes us so much trouble, which, let’s face it, is like running with the footmen; how then shall we do when the whirlwind of a post-Brexit economic slump falls upon us, which is like contending with the horsemen? Part of the answer was considered in the first part of this blogpost, where we discussed the significance of an objective absolute truth. Among the observations we saw in the first part of the blog was that the ‘objective absolute truth’ is profoundly indispensable; for it is the basis upon which we are to key-off when navigating our way through a constantly evolving complex world; and, that it has the power to save us from wilfully shutting our eyes to an objective truth of which the evidence is overwhelming, and whose importance is overpowering. In this second instalment of the blogpost, we continue our investigation by looking at how the concept of an ‘objective absolute truth’ helps our understanding the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ; and we shall do so by asking a simple question: Who is my neighbour?
Do scientists contradict our understanding of Biblical (religious) authors?
2. But first: An objection concerning the first part of this blogpost was brought to my attention by Mr John Cornwall, my editor. The objection is that astronomy, geology; physics and many other sciences do contradict our consideration of Biblical (religious) authors. Now I must place it on the record that I am not a scientist by any measure. Any scientific pretensions I once entertained as a school boy came to a screeching halt in the 1980s, during the Ugandan civil war that brought the current Ugandan dictator, Yoweri Museveni, to power – after one of my bomb experiments accidentally went off, damaging the family home. The blast so terrified my father that, believing that I was both a danger to myself and to the rest of the household, he made it his mission to talk me out of pursuing any further scientific experiments, including the arts. Evidently, he was successful in that I subsequently become a lawyer; I am therefore not qualified to answer the above objection directly. I however do know of a scientist; whose fame was and still is, without equal in the scientific community. His name is Albert Einstein – a man of considerable learning, gravity, and authority. It was an open secret in the scientific circles Albert Einstein moved in that he did not believe in a personal God. This simple fact makes his observations about his feelings vis-à-vis religion and God in the 1940s and 1950s, all the more profound. They should pique your interest. They certainly made me sit up and take notice when I first heard about them. I believe his comments are as relevant today as when he first made them; they speak powerfully to the general malaise we are all experiencing right now, thanks to the on-going Coronavirus pandemic.
Religions are blasphemous: they have no respect or dignity for the author of the universe
3. Albert Einstein’s remarks on religion were recorded in an interview which took place on 3 April 1989; the interview was published AIP, one of America’s foremost journals of physics. The interviewee was one Charles W Misner, a renowned American physicist, and one of the authors of Gravitation. Answering a question put to him by his interviewer, Mr Alan Lightman, namely, “If you could design the universe in any way you wanted to, how would you do it?” To which Charles W Misner responded: “I do see a design of the universe as essentially a religious question. That is, one should have some kind of respect and awe for the whole business, it seems to me. It’s very magnificent and shouldn’t be taken for granted. In fact, my tendency is to believe that is why Albert Einstein had so little use for organized religion, although he strikes me as a basically very religious man. My feeling is that he must have looked at what the preachers he had known said about God and felt that they were blaspheming. He had seen much more than they had ever imagined, and they were just not talking about the real [thing]. My guess is that he simply felt that religions he’d run across were blasphemous and did not have proper respect, or proper dignity, for the author of the universe that he seemed to be seeing.” I agree.
Science does explain the how(s) and wherefore(s) of our complex cosmos
4. I agree because, no one who has had the privilege of peering into the deep mysteries of our universe, just as Albert Einstein had done, can fail to be wowed by its wonder and majesty; for the astonishing grandeur of the universe testifies to something so much bigger than you and me, that it’s no exaggeration to say that were we to see it as it truly ought to be seen, we would all spontaneously fall down on our knees with our faces in the dust, and worship the magnificence as a demonstrable proof of a living God. We have much to thank for the mysteries of science; for science helps us explain the how(s) and wherefore(s) of our complex cosmos and everything therein; but science, alas, cannot explain the big WHY. An instance may be mentioned here: Thanks to science we now know how you and I came into being – biologically speaking. We know that each time a healthy man is united with a healthy woman in an intimate loving embrace; he is capable of releasing into her body between 40 and 1.2 billion sperm cells per single ejaculation. And we are told by science that only one sperm cell will successfully out-compete all others to get the one chance of fertilizing the egg a woman produces per cycle, in order to create and produce a baby. Put to one side the seeming wastefulness of so many sperm cells produced per each ejaculation, has it never struck you as extraordinary that you and I could potentially have millions of siblings? Well, I have often marvelled at the idea, and thanks again to science I know how I came to exist following my father’s sperm cell fertilizing my mother’s egg, all the way to my being born.
But science cannot explain the WHY
5. However, there is a very big BUT; for as much as science is able to explain the ‘how’ my physical being came to exist, science nevertheless fails to explain the ‘why’ you and I are here in the first place. Remarkably, I am as yet to come across any scientific study which explains how I come to possess a soul, which is the spiritual aspect of my being. Why is this important? It is important because my possession of a soul adds an extra dimension to my physical me as a human being. I am in all respects different from other forms of created beings such as those in the animal kingdom. Now I know that animals have feelings and emotions, and it is on this basis that we do sometimes attribute to them certain feelings; that is, we attribute to our beloved family pet’s feelings we so often associate with fellow human beings. I myself have done so on many occasions; and as I write, thoughts of my childhood dog in Uganda, Miss Monday, a white Labrador retriever, come flooding back with so much intensity that I don’t know how to describe them. My family inherited her from a retiring British High Commissioner, after his tour of duty in Uganda had come to an end – hence her posh name. Subsequent pet dogs we owned were given African names. Miss Monday and I had many happy times together. I used to talk to her as if she were a real human being, and wonder of wonders; she seemed to understand me completely, at least that’s how it felt like. She and I got up to a lot of mischief, sometimes creating mayhem in the family home, much to the annoyance of my Scottish step-mother. Miss Monday was a great family member; I miss her very much, even to this day. And yet, I know from bitter experience that there were occasions when it was impossible to connect with Miss Monday the dog, in a way I would with a fellow human being; reminding me that she was after all, a mere dog. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a dog appreciating an enthralling experience of a sunset, something my wife and I enjoy seeing from our apartment in Danshui; for there are some things that can only be shared between one human being to another, things touching upon our very existence; which, on the face of it, remains a great mystery. This reality leads us neatly to a niggling question: Why are we here?
Why are we here?
6. As a professing Christian, it is a great thing to know the certainty of things concerning my Christian religion wherein I have been taught, that I may not only believe them, but that I may also be able to tell others why I believe them. For as it is written in the Gospel according to John 20:31, “[The Bible is] written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” I believe that God is a Spirit; and because He is a Spirit, it is folly to think that because we cannot see him he cannot see us. He does. For every facet of creation is under God’s intuition and influence. He that framed the engine knows perfectly well all its assorted working parts. I believe God made me, and He therefore knows everything there is to know about me. And, as we read in the Book of Psalms 139:13-16: “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me when as yet there was none of them.” God being a Spirit, saw me when I was formed, creating in me a soul, which is a spirit, a concealing form encompassing all about me; thus I was created in His own image, I am indeed fearfully and wonderfully made; thus am I justly astonished at the admirable contrivance of my living being, the composition of my every bodily part, and the harmony of all my members put together.
The purpose of the soul is to worship and glorify God
7. The soul is the stuff which sets us apart from all other created beings in the natural world; and the primary purpose of the soul is to enable us to worship and glorify our creator, the one and only living God. In the Gospel of John 4:24 we read, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth;” thus worshiping God in the spirit is what makes Christian worship unique – unlike any other religion on earth. For the very essence of Christianity is a supernatural experience; it has nothing to do with intellectualism, although intelligence may be of some assistance. Indeed, great secular learning, honour, and power, seldom positions a man’s mind to the reception of supernatural things, especially divine light that can only be found in the one and only living God. This leads us to that all important question, namely, by what means are we to perceive these supernatural things? The answer, I fear, is unsettling to our age. It is unsettling because it exposes our utter powerlessness in the face the absolute objective truth we discussed in the first part of this blogpost, namely, that the Lord Jesus Christ is God. Let me show you how unsettling it is.
Nicodemus: a personal enquiry
8. In the day when our Lord Jesus Christ traversed the land of Canaan, there was a man who went by the name of Nicodemus. He was a Pharisee, a man of great learning and a scholar. Nicodemus was ruler of the Jews, a member of the great Sanhedrin and a man of authority in Jerusalem. Such was his standing in society that were he alive today, it is highly probable that Nicodemus would be a Bishop in the Church of England; very probably Bishop of London, who as is well known, is the third most senior bishop after the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and one of the five senior bishops who sit as of right, as one of the 26 Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. The other four senior bishops are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Winchester. Nicodemus had clearly heard about the teachings and works of the Lord Jesus Christ from afar and took it upon himself to investigate a little further in person; coming to Jesus by night, incognito, as it were – no doubt afraid of jeopardizing his high standing in society. And who are we to blame the man! Just imagine, a whole Bishop of London seeking a personal rendezvous with a nondescript preacher from a place, which Nathan’a-el is reported to have remarked, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth [For dramatic effect, please substitute Nazareth for a remote dusty town in some obscure African country during the British empire]?’ The English tabloid press would most certainly have a field day at the bishop’s expense; we would never hear the end of it, to the shame of a scandalized Church of England.
Unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God
9. In the ensuing discourse between Nicodemus and the Lord Jesus Christ, which is recorded for us in the Gospels, we learn, for example, in the Gospel of John 3:3-4 that, “‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to [Jesus], ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?’” And in verse 6 of the same chapter we read, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This is difficult stuff. Since birth is the beginning of life as we know it; to be born anew is to begin again, as those that have hitherto lived inappropriately or to those whose lives are without direction or purpose. In other words, we must have a new nature, with new principles, new affections and new aims in life. New birth here signifies that its origins are in heaven; it is to be born to a divine and heavenly life, a life in communion with the living God. And, as a partaker of a divine nature, our lives must bear the image of the heavenly. New birth is therefore an indispensable necessity.
New birth is a divine work, not humanly possible
10. Allow me to illustrate: Take me as an example. Even if it were possible for me to re-enter my mother’s womb with the help of say, science, we have to ask: To what purpose? For that which is born of the flesh is flesh; a clean thing cannot be brought out of an unclean. It is necessary to seek a new original; that is, I must be born of the Spirit, or I cannot become spiritual. This reality is what drives many people into throwing up their hands in utter despair – just as Nicodemus did. For the case is very plain; though I am made to consist of the body and soul, yet my spiritual part is so much dominated by my sinful nature that I am naturally predisposed to eating the forbidden fruit as it were. And by the forbidden fruit I mean the tyranny of all manner of natural lusts. Truth to tell: The human heart is a prodigious sweatshop of desires. It means that my soul is as dead as a dodo – totally unresponsive to divine things. And, as much as I love my late father, it grieves me to admit that my father walked through a season in his personal life, in which he was a womanizer. I am a product of his womanizing ways; his love child, and a bastard. I was conceived in sin when my earthly father came into union with my mother; and begat me in his own likeness, thus transmitting in me his own human nature, a human nature that is entirely wrought in his own strength. By his human will, I am corrupted and depraved just as he was; and in that, he and I share the same plight, which, if it were possible for me to father a child of my own, I would in all likelihood propagate the same corruption into my child. Corruption and sin are accordingly interwoven in my nature; and seeing that I was formed in iniquity, it is absolutely necessary that my nature be changed; that is, if I am to have a chance of seeing spiritual things. It is not enough for me to change, as one would change into a new suit of clothing, but I must put on a new nature, a new nature that is created from above. There must be a divine operation; call it a miraculous process, if you please; for it is in some sense so. Indeed, there must be a divine interaction, a divine working, a divine influence, or else all my attempts at changing myself are futile.
What Albert Einstein saw was inconsistent with being a child of God
11. To see the kingdom of God is to be a member of the mystical church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is far bigger and more comprehensive than any other known religion on earth has to offer; it is, as it is so eloquently written in the Gospel of John 1:12-13, “But to all who received [Jesus Christ], who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” In other words, those of us, who are born again in the spirit, enjoy the unspeakable liberty and privilege of being the children of God. Therefore, unless God the spirit has renewed us, and caused us to be born anew, we cannot see the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ, which accords with what is written in the Gospel of John 1:14, and verse 16, namely, “…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father… And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace” Indeed, without this profound supernatural change taking place in us, it is impossible to speak about spiritual things, that is, heavenly things with any degree of genuineness. Why? Because it is a physical impossibility; as impossible that ever my beloved childhood dog, Miss Monday, should deliver a public lecture on Astrophysics; for every man in the audience will be able to see quite clearly, that she is a mere dog. It is as much an impossibility that a man who is not born again, should take to the pulpit to give a sermon in which the glory of Jesus Christ ‘as of the only Son from the Father’ is the main focus. Truly, a Christian speaks best for Jesus Christ when he says the least about himself, even though his own works praise him; a Christian’s lips should never praise himself, but lift up Christ Jesus for all the world to see. Were he to persist in giving his sermon, sooner or later, it will become as clear as the daylight that he does not understand the things about which he is speaking; and, therefore, he is blaspheming against the living God. This, I think, is what Albert Einstein saw; for what he heard preached by religious leaders in their pulpits struck him as nothing more than clanging cymbals, bearing little or no resemblance to what he had seen in his extensive searches as a scientist. What he saw can only be explained in the context of a living God and must have affected him profoundly – hence the seeming religiosity that others saw in him.
The primary business of a Christian is to direct people to the Lord Jesus Christ
12. To repeat and for the avoidance of doubt: We, the followers of Christ Jesus, must be careful not usurp powers and prerogatives which exclusively belong to Him; we are not the Lord Jesus Christ, nor are we to assume praises which are due to Him alone. We are not to lord it over His church, nor pretend to a dominion over the faith of fellow Christians. We cannot create grace or peace; we have not the power to enlighten, convert, quicken, or comfort anyone; such work belongs to Christ Jesus – alone. Our primary business as followers of our Lord Jesus Christ is to direct all people regardless of their race, colour, social-economic standing, academic accomplishments or nationality – to Him alone; for we speak not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord. What Albert Einstein experienced is, alas, and to our great shame, sadly true even to this day. Indeed, it is a melancholy fact that many people are kept from the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ by unreasonable prejudices they have conceived against religion, which, tragically, we ourselves have had a hand in creating; these prejudices do not at all touch upon the merits of our faith. They, for example, cite as a piece of evidence which they have heard ventilated in a pulpit by the Reverend So and So, and point to it as something of a hairy paw of bigotry of some form or other; for bigotry of whatever form, be it real or imaginary, is in direct contradiction with the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, at its very core, is love. They urge, and quite rightly in my view, that bigotry is a sin; a sin which manifests itself in a corrupt British political class and an economic system that prospers on the back of inequality, both of which have conspired to create a heartless society we see today in our beloved United Kingdom. They cite this as their primary reason why they don’t take religion seriously. The Christian religion is in their view nothing but a cover for wickedness.
The sour dregs of sin pollute the general stream of all humanity
13. Since the fall of Adam from the Garden of Eden as we saw in the first part of this blogpost, the sour dregs of sin continue to pollute the general stream of all humanity – both at home and abroad. A shocking incident which recently took place in London, during the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, may now be mentioned, in order to illustrate the point. This is set against the background that England is generally speaking a Christian country – a fact that is a source of much pride to many British people. The incident was reported in an article by Jan Moir, a columnist at the Daily Mail. In the article entitled, ‘What kind of lowlife would spit at a woman like this?’ – Jan Moir wrote thus: “So many deaths, so many stories of loss and worry, so many fears about the future. Yet few things about the pandemic have troubled me more than the death of Belly Mujinga. Her passing was not just a tragedy for her family and friends but one for humanity, too. How could such a terrible things happen in our midst?”
14. “On Mothering Sunday,” Jan Moir continued, “the morning before London went into lockdown, Ms Mujinga went to her work as a ticket officer at Victoria Station in the capital. As usual, the 47-year-old mother of one had risen at 4.30am to take a bus to begin her shift at 6am. It is people like Belly who keep every big city moving; the great diaspora of train drivers, transport workers, police and engineers who work around the clock to keep networks open and running smoothly. Like many, she was worried about coronavirus. She had informed her employer, Govia Thameslink Railway, of an underlying health condition that made her vulnerable. Ms Mujinga had asked to work inside, behind the glass screens in the ticket office. Yet for reasons that remain unclear, she was sent outside to work on the concourse with no PPE. And then the unimaginable happened. It was nearly 11.30am when Belly Mujinga, busy checking passenger tickets, was accosted by a stranger. After telling her he had Covid-19, the man, described as a ‘Smartly dressed’ professional in his 50s, spat in her face, then ran off, melting back into the anonymity of the crowds. Tragically it seems that he was speaking the truth. Belly died of the same infection two weeks later in Barnet Hospital, North London. What kind of lowlife, what kind of blemish on humanity could do such a vicious and pitiless thing? To spit at anyone is a disgrace – but to do so in the full knowledge that you have a communicable, deadly disease?” I must confess that I feel totally inadequate to answer any of Jan Moir’s questions. Accordingly, this may be a good place to ask yet another difficult question, which is the primary subject of this blogpost, namely: Who is my neighbour?
Who is my neighbour?
15. Since the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ is in essence the underlying theme of this blogpost, allow me to answer the above question by drawing you into a little controversy which is reported in the Gospel according to Luke 10:25-37. It is reported that, “[A] lawyer stood up to put [Jesus] to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ [Jesus] said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read?’ And [the lawyer] answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’ And [Jesus] said to him, ‘You have answered right; do this, and you will live.’ But [The lawyer], desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; then he saw him, he had compassion, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?’ [The lawyer] said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’”
The context of the parable: animosity between the Jew and the Samaritan
16. The above parable must have been profoundly unsettling to the listeners, as it touched upon a raw nerve, that is, the legendary hatred which existed between the Samaritans and the Jews. Their hatred is comparable to the visceral hatred we saw between the Serbs and Muslims during the Bosnian war in the 1990s; or the enmity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, most notably during the Troubles between 1968 to 1998; or the seemingly never-ending hostility between African Americans and White American Supremacists, dating back to the Atlantic slave trade. The issues between the Samaritans and the Jews were both political and religious; their animosity probably went back to a period before the separation of the Northern and Southern Jewish Kingdoms, the children of Jacob were evidently far from united. We learn from 1st Book of Kings 16: 24 that, after the separation of Judah and Israel in about the 9th century, King Omri of the Northern Kingdom bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer, where he established the city of Samaria, which become his capital. It was a well-built city, strong defensively; and enjoyed the control of the valley through which the main road connecting Jerusalem and Galilee ran. On or about 722 BC, the city fell to the Assyrians, who subsequently established the city as the headquarters of the province of Samaria. While many of the inhabitants of the city and the surrounding area of Samaria were taken into captivity, there were some, mainly farmers who remained behind; they intermarried with new settlers from Mesopotamia and Syria.
17. Turning to the 2nd Book of Kings, chapter 17, we learn that the Jewish worship of God was corrupted, leading to the Samaritans being regarded by mainstream Jews as a renegade people. The seeds that would lead to the eventual split between the Jews and the Samaritans were sown, as it is recorded for us in the Book of Ezra in the 4th chapter, when the returning exiled Jews rejected the Samaritans from participating in rebuilding the second Temple at Jerusalem. But the decisive split came when, according to the Book of Nehemiah 13:28-29, the grandson of the high priest, Eliashib, married the daughter of Sanballat, the governor of the province of Samaria. For the sin of defiling the priesthood by marrying a foreign woman, Nehemiah drove Eliashib from Jerusalem; even though Sanballat was by this time worshiping Yahweh, the Jewish God. Josephus, that great Jewish historian, tells us that Sanballat, for his part, built a temple on mount Gerizim so that his son-in-law could continue to function as a high priest. From this event until the time Jesus walked the lands of Palestine, the Jews and the Samaritans never saw eye-to-eye. This background is what made the parable incredibly controversial. It is still controversial even to this day as it touches upon the seemingly insurmountable divisions, which are the meat and drink for many people(s) in the 21st century. But what was the point of this parable – really?
You and I are made in the image of God
18. A healthy society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens. And in many parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, nay, in much the world today, there are no minimally agreed upon standards for what it means to be a good citizen. There are no basic values or rules woven into daily life, which people can absorb unconsciously and follow automatically. We now live in a culture of non-judgmentalism, thanks in no small degree to relativism and pluralism. Our society deliberately refuses to assert that one way of behaviour is better than another, thus leaving many citizens without a habit of setting standards or understanding why they are necessary. Moreover, multiculturalism, an idea that places equal value to all cultures, which in of itself is not necessarily a bad idea, but its power to polarize is clearly an issue; for the politicized form of multiculturalism rejects the idea that there are general truths, norms or rules that reference to both knowledge and morals. The implication is that race, ethnicity, sexual orientations have an inescapable effect on the way people think, which precludes a universal truth – such as the absolute objective truth which we investigated in the first part of this blogpost. Accordingly, the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan is, the Lord Jesus Christ’s way of telling us over and over again the manner in which we are to live towards our fellow men. Recollect that at the heart of this parable is an objective absolute truth which is, that you and I are made in the image of God.
Racism is an affront to the religion of our Lord Jesus Christ
19. It is highly significant that the principal character in the story is a Samaritan. It is Jesus’s direct assault on racism. For racism, in Jesus’ day as now, is a notion which suggests that a person’s race determines his identity. It is a belief that my values, beliefs, and character are determined by my ancestry rather than by the decision of my own mind. It is a fallacy that is all around us, even as I write. In this parable, the Lord Jesus Christ is challenging us to look beyond race; but, the rather, to look to our common humanity. And, by looking to our common humanity, I am thus made cognizant to the fact that the world is full of affliction; for man is born to trouble, as the sparks fly upward. Thus it was that an honest man, travelling peaceably about his lawful business in the road down from Jerusalem to Jericho, was set upon by some wicked men who robbed him of everything he had, beating him senseless and leaving him for dead. This man, a Jew, is slighted by men who should have known better; for they were not only men of his own nation and religion, but were holders of public office, one a priest and the other a Levite. Their public offices obliged them to act with tenderness and compassion. Without going into sundry details, there is no doubt they both had very good reasons for not coming to the aid of their fellow countryman; for there is no man alive who wickedly refuses a plea of need who does not have an argument or two that he is in the right, arguments that would silence even his severest of critics. As the crucible of the Coronavirus pandemic in England is clearly showing, thanks to the scandal surrounding the prime minister’s special advisor, Dominic Cummings; it is wretched when those who should set a good example of leadership and compassion, are themselves geniuses of cruelty and unkindness. These two leaders in Israel, having taken a good look at the plight of the miserable poor man; they stepped aside, and went on their way.
The golden rule of Justice: Do to others as you would be done by
20. These were the circumstances in which a certain Samaritan, as noted in a brief history alluded to above, was of a nation which of all others the Jews most despised and detested; under no circumstances would they be seen dead having dealings with such an one. But it was this much despised man that had some humanity; for his compassion was opened towards a complete stranger, never taking into consideration what country the victim was of. It is probable that based on visible characteristics of the distressed man who was left for dead; the Samaritan was able to work out that the victim was indeed a Jew. This made no difference to him, for the Samaritan was well taught; the victim was a human being just like he was, and a man in misery. The Samaritan had learned to honour all men; for he understood right well that the miserable man’s case could easily be his own, and therefore took pity on the man, as he himself would wish others to take pity on him, that is, if he were ever to be in a like situation. As the parable clearly states, the Samaritan’s compassion was not idle; for he physically went out of his way, to the poor man and made inquiries; and having acquainted himself of the tragic circumstances, he played the role of a surgeon and bound up the man’s wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and set the poor man on his own donkey, choosing to walk on foot himself, and took him to an inn, where he treated the poor man as if he were his own flesh and blood. Accordingly, in this picture the Lord Jesus Christ is showing us that, it is the duty of you and me, in our respective places, and according to our ability to aid, help and relieve all that are in distress; and therefore, we ought to look upon all those in need as our neighbour. But can this principle work in complex great affairs of both man and state – such as those making the news in the world over – thanks to the Coronavirus pandemic?
Can the golden rule work in great affairs of both man and state?
21. In answer, let me share with you a little chat I recently had with a good friend in Taiwan. A while ago, Dr Charles Chang, a local lawyer wondered aloud whether a humble man such as himself, could have a significant impact on world affairs. Dr Chang’s thoughts were in reference to the incredible resistance which came from China, following calls for Taiwan’s inclusion in the just concluded World Health Assembly of 2020; whose agenda was dominated by the global Coronavirus pandemic. The calls for inclusion were in recognition of Taiwan’s exemplary fight against the Coronavirus. China, as many of you will know, regards the Taiwanese Island as her sovereign possession; and therefore protests vehemently at any suggestion that Taiwan could possibly be an independent country, with a vibrant democracy and rule of law of her own. China’s policy respecting Taiwan is to squeeze the life out of her through deliberate acts of isolation on the global stage; in the hopes that she may one day, freely submit herself to the political authority of Beijing. Against this background of deliberate hostility from China, it is perfectly understandable for both Dr Chang and Taiwan to feel totally powerless. In my reply, and in the hopes of encouraging him, I pointed out that there was more to life than meets the eye: for seemingly insignificant accidents, may bring about great consequences. I told him a story concerning a little known Glasgow solicitor and city councillor, whose law practise, was on the face of it, carrying on work which was seemingly insignificant. However, this seemingly obscure lawyer changed the legal world in ways not even he, could have hardly began to imagine. The solicitor’s name is Mr Walter Leechman. Unless you are a common law lawyer, there is every chance that you’ve probably never heard of him. But his influence is still with us today, most particularly in areas of global product liability. Now let me tell you how it all happened.
A curious tale of a decomposed snail in a ginger beer bottle
22. On a quiet evening Sunday of 26 August 1928, during the Glasgow Trades Holiday, Mrs Donoghue took a train to Paisley, Renfrewshire. In Paisley, Mrs Donohue went to the Wellmeadow Café, along with a friend (name not provided for legal reasons). This friend of hers decided to treat Mrs Donoghue; she ordered a pear and ice for herself and a Scotsman ice cream float, a mix of ice cream and ginger beer, for Mrs Donoghue. The owner of the Café, Francis Minghella, brought over a tumbler of ice cream and poured ginger beer on it from a brown and opaque bottle. Mrs Donoghue drank some of the ice cream float; however, when her friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the tumbler, a decomposed snail also floated out of the bottle. The sight of it caused Mrs Donoghue to feel ill, and she subsequently complained of abdominal pain. Three days later, on 29 August, Mrs Donoghue consulted a doctor and was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary for ‘emergency treatment’ on 16 September. She was subsequently diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. The bottle which contained the ginger beer was labelled ‘D. Stevenson, Glen Lane, Paisley.’ It is worth mentioning here that on the same label was an inscription, ‘Stevenson’s McByde’ giving the impression that the bottle probably did not originate from Stevenson who would be the subject of a lawsuit as we shall see below. This is significant because in those days, bottles were often re-used, and in the process occasionally returned to the incorrect manufacturer. Indeed, in the subsequent lawsuit, Stevenson initially claimed he did not issue bottles matching the description provided by Mrs Donoghue. The reality was the ginger beer had been manufactured by Mr David Stevenson, who ran a company producing both ginger and lemonade at numbers 11 and 12 Glen Lane, Paisley, less than a mile away from the Wellmeadow Café. The above contact details were clearly legible on the bottle and it is these that were recorded by a quick thinking Mrs Donoghue’s friend. The issue on every lawyer’s lips at the time was: Does Mrs Donoghue have a cause of action in law?
Mrs Donoghue not only had a cause of action, she changed the law
23. Now the law as it stood at the time was that, injuries resulting from defective products were normally claimed on the basis of a contract of sale between the seller and the consumer. Evidently, Mrs Donoghue had no contractual relationship with Minghella as she had not purchased the ginger beer, while her friend did have a contract through having placed the order; she had not suffered any injury. Moreover, neither of the two friends had a contract with Stevenson, the manufacturer. Liability for personal injury in the law of tort usually depended upon showing physical damage inflicted directly (trespass to the person) or indirectly (trespass on the property). Thus being made ill by consuming a noxious substance did not qualify, so the orthodox view was that Mrs Donoghue had no sustainable claim in law. But Mr Walter Leechman thought otherwise. Extending his good offices to Mrs Donoghue, because judging by the reported case, (M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) Appellant v. Stevenson Respondent A.C 562, it is quite evident that she was of limited means. It was a pro bono case. The Legal Aid facility enjoyed by many poor people in the UK today had not been invented. The long story brief, the case went all the way to the House of Lords, the final appeal court in the United Kingdom; the UK Supreme Court was established in 2009. Thus on 26 May 1932, Lord Atkin rose amid the splendour of the great chamber of the House of Lords and delivered an immortal speech touching upon the question, who is my neighbour? He said thus: “The rule that you are to love your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.” Mrs Donoghue not only had a cause of action, she changed the law. For this decision fundamentally changed the law, by creating a new type of liability in law which did not depend upon any previously recognized category of tortious claims.
The neighbour principle is a matter of conscience
24. The neighbour principle applies equally in small matters as well as in the great affairs of both man and state. It is a matter of conscience – which we are all concerned to be rightly informed in. And addressing myself to Christians specifically, it is a matter of conscience that we should all be concerned to know who our neighbour is; that is, whom by the second great commandment we are particularly obliged to love. This point was brought home in a particularly profound way, after reading an excellent article, by George Monbiot of The Guardian: “The UK government was ready for this pandemic. Until it sabotaged its own system.” That article made me realize that whomsoever we have need to receive kindness from, and find ready to show us the kindness we need, we cannot but look upon as our neighbour, and therefore ought to look upon all those as such who need our kindness. This means all of us – regardless whether we are members of government or ordinary members of the public; for our country is facing the greatest peril the like of which we’ve never seen. The principle of my neighbour is, in the circumstances, a community project; it concerns all of us. And, it applies to both Christian and non-Christian alike.
How does the neighbour principle apply to you and me in practice?
25. To conclude: Allow me to give you a quote for you to consider – by way of encouragement. I have found the quote useful; it has helped me understand how the neighbour principle works in my day-to-day affairs. I think it speaks powerfully on the on-going challenges the UK is facing right now. The quote is from Sophie Scholl, a young German woman who was executed by the Nazis in 1943, at a tender age of 21. She wrote the following: “The real damage is done by those millions who want to ‘survive’. The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take a measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves – or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who like small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming touch does. I choose my own way to burn.”
Editor’s note: Keeping to the run of our theme: ‘Who is my neighbour?’ – I warmly recommend this little talk by Andrew Feinstein. Andrew Feinstein is Executive Director of Shadow World Investigations, an NGO that details and exposes the impact of bribery and corruption on democracy, governance and development. You may kindly look up his work by visiting, shadowworldinvestigations.org/ Also, the video is courtesy to The Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, pwias.ubc.ca/
What kind of neighbour will you be?
26. In this fast changing world where ideas can have a cost, nay, sometimes with very tragic consequences; it behooves all of us to be vigilant about our duties to one another, both as a citizen and as a good neighbour, for the future of our country may depend on what we do with our lives. And the question I must ask you now is this: What kind of neighbour will you be?