An Open Letter to David Cameron: How to Save the United Kingdom

This is my second article on Christian Today on the Independence debate. After my open letter to Alex Salmond here is one to David Cameron. Given the polls this weekend it seems apposite! As always your comments are appreciated…

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/an.open.letter.to.david.cameron.how.to.save.the.united.kingdom/40383.htm

14 thoughts on “An Open Letter to David Cameron: How to Save the United Kingdom

  1. And my comment, as always, David, is that you sound like a loon. A Jesus Freak and you will be summarily dismissed as a wingbat. I don’t think you are a wingbat, but when you write this religious propaganda, and end it by claiming you trust a guy who died 2000 years ago, it makes you look like one.
    Adults have greater concerns and have more complex problems than your little war against gay people (based on a Palestinian text, not a Scottish one, BTW, which undermines this strange fixation on national pride and sovereignty).
    The Bible has nothing new to say. Europe tried to have a Bible-based government for 1000-1500 years. We can take what we like and reject what we don’t – regardless of your personal religious feelings.
    Let us drive this bus into Hell, David. You will be saved because you are such a wonderful Christian, and you won’t miss us one bit because God will erase your mind of us so you can’t suffer in Heaven.
    Your God won’t judge you for our actions. Let us go to Hell in peace!

    Do what Jesus told you to do: keep your trap shut. We want to go to Hell. Stop trying to change societies mind. Can’t we have Free Will without you trying to undermine it?

      1. But you just said it’s exciting there are different beliefs in the Church! Is this another example of having contradictory beliefs that are both true! Your god is truly a great god if it can break the laws of logic! (I say sarcastically.)

  2. Again, you ramble on about the Christian values of Britain being lost without ever explaining how a Yes vote would restore them in Scotland.

    The same Scottish National Party that rejected the public on gay marriage in Scotland is going to suddenly defend Christian values? You don’t explain how this will work perhaps because it doesn’t actually make any sense.

    1. I don’t think voting Yes will restore Christian values – only renewal and revival can do that!

      But the point is that the reason for their being a United Kingdom was Protestantism….if that is gone what is the reason for continuing?

  3. David

    I fully agree with your views on the dire nature of UK politics in general and the Prime Minister in particular – indeed all the parties seems to blend into one vacuous blob looking only to the next focus group or headline!

    “Truth has fallen in the public square”.

    Interestingly I frequently visit the website of Spiked (http://www.spiked-online.com/) which, although is very left wing, frequently has views which are very similar to mine (and to some extent yours I suspect). For example on SSM they were strong opponents for a variety of historical, psychological and sociological reasons.

    They are also equally critical of the conviction-free zone that is now UK politics.

    But I must say that I agree with their view that this applies as much north lf the border as south. There may be a vigorous debate in Scotland, but as I have implied in a previous post I find something deeply selfish about the debate. “Scotland must have its way, irrespective of the views of the rest of the UK or its effect on the overwhelming majority of the population.

    The inclusion of the future of the NHS in the debate (apparantly a major issue) is so clearly nothing more than a political scare story (NHS Sotland is completely separate) that they are no better than the the “no” politicians and their scare stories.

    If the “yes” vote win, then the future of the whole UK will be determined by about 5% of the population while 90% of us have no say, des;pite the fact that the consequences will be huge. I fnd this deeply unjust and illogical. I know that you disagree with this.

    On a more positive note if the “no” vote win (and I hope they do) then perhaps there will be the opportunity for a more constructive debate on the future of the Union. Clearly things will never be the same and change is inevitable. But surely change can be initiated without divorce and the huge complex financial and administrative hassles associated with it.

    Cheers

    Tom Goodfellow

  4. David, I must say I am confused by your stance on the referendum however you wanted a reason Christians should vote no, here are 3…

    1. The Scottish parliament rushed to approve measures such as gay marriage before the UK did and have set themselves up as more progressive with more limitations on our freedom to preach the gospel. They also have no need to pay even lip service to the church as the Scottish church is a political non-entity in Scotland. Their publc consultations proved this. This makes them a bigger threat to the church than the UK gov’t is.

    2. Breaking up the union is covenant breaking. I know you guys in the free kirk are probably sick of hearing about what is covenant breaking and what isn’t but the union was a covenant between nations with a healthy dose of interest from the church. A man is not free to leave his wife if he feels that he would make more money and his own decisions by being divorced. We should not seek to do the same but uphold the union for better or worse

    3. Breaking the union is not in best interests of the rest of the UK and is therefore not consistent with the way we, as Christians, are to act towards those God has appointed as our rulers nor to those who are our fellow citizens. In 1 Tim 2:1-2 we are told to pray for our leaders and this would result in the increase of peace, godliness and effective evangelism. How can a Scottish person effectively love another person from the rest of the UK after voting to cause them harm?

    As the cause of Christ should be our ultimate goal these three are my main reasons for voting No.

    God Bless

    David

    1. Thanks David – in regard to your points.

      1) Both are as bad as one another. Did the Westminster government pay heed to the church on SSM?
      2) Covenant breaking? If there was a covenant then Westminster committed adultery a long time ago – and thats grounds for divorce. If you want to use than analogy.
      3) Would you say the same to the Ukrainian church? Is Ukraine being out of Russia better for Russia? Does this mean that English Christians should want what is best for Scotland and so support independence? Besides what if Scotland leaving was actually a blessing for England? Maybe the whole system is so corrupt it needs a radical shaking up?

      1. Thanks for your reply
        1) Is there not a difference between secularism as a foundational ‘spiritual’ underpinning for a brand new parliament and secularism as a recent historical development in a system which has had historical Christian commitment and input?
        2) What adultery? I have always found the English to be more supportive of the union than the Scots, even right now we have Scottish MPs able to vote on English policy without the reverse being true in many instances.
        3) Russia is taking up military operations against Ukraine, these are not comparable (neither is the Sudanese example someone came up with). No side of the debate has suggested that it would be better for the rest of the UK if Scotland left we only have a Nat suggestion that we’d make more money and have more power. How do you explain that to English Christians whose livelihood is put at risk from the fallout of separation? How would separation affect your witness form the Keswick stage? How can it not harm your witness? Why not rather be wronged than harm an English brother or potential brother in Christ?

    2. I very much appreciate your points, David (Irvine) and think the covenant metaphor is a very useful one, thank you.

      I don’t see how our Union partners have been unfaithful to a point of justifying divorce. That feels a somewhat desperate justification…

      I don’t accept either that our union is a corrupt system (there are elements that work well, elements that don’t and elements that are improving) or that shifting all power to central belt Scotland would result in anything significantly different. There will always be politicians and power and people voting and many not getting their first choice candidate or party.

      MM

  5. David

    My own journey on this issue is I think similar to yours. But in recent days I have felt more and more that the decision for voters must not be based on “What is better for Scotland” but “What is better for all” – and I think God would have us define “all” very widely. At a time of separatist tensions in so many places, fuelled by the gun, I worry that even a peaceful, democratic decision in Scotland exemplifies local thinking rather than global.
    I was raised a proud Scot. In exile, in Australia, I remain one. But now, I think, as the crunch date approaches, I feel more and more concerned that it isn’t right to separate. I hope and pray that Christians who are voting will seek God’s counsel as to his will and not the human will.
    Prof Doug Grant (Melbourne)

    1. Doug, Thanks for this very interesting and helpful comment. I agree it should be what is better for all….but I actually believe that breaking up a corrupt system and compelling everyone to change will be better for all. I agree about prayer and trust that the Lords will, whether in judgement or blessing, will be done. May He have mercy…

  6. Hi David, thanks for your fine letter to Cameron. A worthy companion (and welcome foil!) to your Salmond letter. You write that “a revival of traditional Scottish Calvinism will be essential to the success of an independent Scotland”. It is the word “traditional” here I hesitate over. And that for similar reasons that I have expressed a degree of impatience with our corporate moping over erosion of our “Christian heritage”. As if like offsping of the ultra-wealthy we can expect the cash machine to keep coughing up the necessary, so sparing us the discomfort of having to face the raw elements and forge an existential living-space of our own.

    So, to what degree does our evangelical approach to “politics” reveal an effete delusion of Christian entitlement? We are surely called as Christians, as Calvinists, to stake our claim to the PRESENT (rather than fight for the past) in the name of Christ. That involves the difficult task of figuring out what is really going on around us and then stepping into the ring. Your own engagement (in a broad range of debates, books, and writings such as these “open letters”) has been a great model and inspiration.

    Someone else coming from within the Calvinist inheritance and seeking to grapple with the complexities of current society is Jonathan Chaplin. You are no doubt familiar with his work. He has a short article which challenges the notion of a modern “covenanted” nation. Some traditionalists will no doubt strongly disagree with it, but perhaps it nonetheless has a contribution to make to others as they ponder the issues of the referendum. It is called “Can nations be ‘Christian’? An English debate”, and can be found here:
    http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/1164/can-nations-be-christian-an-english-debate

    I myself am pro-Yes, of course, as is an esteemed English acquaintance, who emailed me with the following a day or two ago:

    “You’re going to win my friend. And by so doing, you will, I trust, give such a cleansing shock to England as will lead to our renewal as a nation. It was Jennie Geddes’ stool that gave us at length a Puritan Protectorate in search of liberty of conscience. So may it be again, in some form or other.”

    He then included some rather dense poetry by Milton. Slightly tongue in cheek, I imagine, since the Irish in me is very wary of Cromwell. But the latter part of the extract (“yet much remains…”) is spookily relevant (for those who get that far!). I do hope the poetry keeps its formatting here, or it will be even more of a challenge to read! I will put an oblique at the end of each line in case the whole thing runs together like prose. By the way, I looked up “imbru’d”. It means “soaked”. –

    Cromwell, our chief of men, who through a cloud/
    Not of war only, but detractions rude,/
    Guided by faith and matchless fortitude,/
    To peace and truth thy glorious way hast plough’d,/
    And on the neck of crowned Fortune proud/
    Hast rear’d God’s trophies, and his work pursu’d,/
    While Darwen stream with blood of Scots imbru’d,/
    And Dunbar field, resounds thy praises loud,/
    And Worcester’s laureate wreath; yet much remains/
    To conquer still: peace hath her victories/
    No less renown’d than war. New foes arise/
    Threat’ning to bind our souls with secular chains:/
    Help us to save free Conscience from the paw/
    Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw./
    (John Milton, 1652)

  7. In your open letter, you write the header “How to Save the United Kingdom” and yet I struggle to see how your article in any way gives David Cameron advice on how to save the UK. It seems a long article designed to offend him, criticise him and give a personal commentary on the current political situation.

    While you are of course entitled to do so, I am not sure you answered your own question and (unlike possibly your letter to Alex Salmond) there is next to zero chance of this one getting a response I’m afraid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *