Test Questions on Christian Perspectives

General Advice

Sample questions with answers:

Personal Relationships
Birth and Death
Prejudice and Discrimination
Peace and Justice
World Community

 

General Advice

There are three types of question, generally corresponding to (a), (b) and (c).  It is really important to understand what sort of answer each type of question expects.  You should know your stuff by now - here is where you can show the examiner this!

(a)  Knowledge and understanding  of Christian teaching (examples from 1999 paper) [8 marks]

  • Describe and explain Christian teaching about life after death.  
  • Describe and explain Christian teaching about forgiveness.   
  • Describe and explain Christian teaching about how other people should be treated.    
  • Describe and explain what some Christians mean when they use the phrase 'a Just War'.   
  • Describe and explain Christian teaching about the importance of taking care of the environment.    

All questions seem to begin Describe and explain.  Generally this is followed by Christian teaching about...   So they want you to:

Describe the teaching

where is the teaching from - you can quote chapter and verse if you know it, but give any information you can e.g. Jesus said that...  The Old Testament taught...  The Church of England's position on euthanasia is...

what is the teaching - you can give a direct quote - Job 1:21 says: "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away", or you can paraphrase - Paul taught that all authority comes from God so you should do what the leaders of the country say.  If you are paraphrasing, never include speech marks.  The Bible does not say "All people are equal", but it does say that mankind, including men and women, were "made in God's image". 

Explain the teaching

what does the passage mean - for example, "God created man in His own image" is not self-explanatory.  It doesn't mean we look like God!

how does this passage apply to this issue - you can use the opening chapter of Genesis in questions on the environment, equality, sanctity of life etc, but you must explain how it relates to the issue.  Read the question carefully to tailor your answer to the specific words used.  Look above at the question about the importance of taking care of the environment.    Your answer must use these words! 

Note that Christian teaching includes Biblical passages, Church teaching (position statements, encyclicals etc.) and quotes from individual Christians.  Try to include all of these if you can!

(b)    Application [7 marks]

  • Describe and explain two different attitudes of Christians towards birth control.    
  • Describe and explain the reasons for two different Christian attitudes towards the remarriage of divorced people.    
  • Describe how and explain why some Christians work to help people with disabilities.   
  • Explain why some Christians are prepared to die for their beliefs.   
  • Explain why Christians have set up organizations such as Christian Aid or CHAFED.    

This is where you think about how the teaching in (a) might affect a Christian's attitudes or behavior.  You will be asked to think about a specific situation or issue.  You may need to explain what a Christian may feel about this issue, and how he/she would respond.  Try to include specific, practical examples.  Try to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the issue - you should avoid saying that ALL Christians would feel this or react that way.  Recognize the diversity in Christian responses where possible.

(c)     Evaluation   [5 marks]

  • 'The right to die with dignity is just as important as the right to live.'
  • 'Love is all you need in a relationship.'
  • 'Men and women are equal.'
  • 'Pacifism is just an excuse for being a coward.'
  • 'There should be no such thing as a rich Christian.'

Do you agree?  Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view.  You must refer to Christianity in your answer.  

The question is misleading - it always asks 'do you agree?', but however well you back up your answer, just giving your own opinion will only get a couple of marks.  It should say: 'Discuss all of the issues raised by this comment, making your own opinion clear.'   Imagine you were back in school, and the question came up in class.  Everyone would have different things to say about it, giving their own reasons to support their views.  Try to write down everyone's responses, organizing them as carefully as possible, but do make clear what YOU think.  You could do this in a summary at the end.

You may want to develop a set approach.  For example, imagine you disagree strongly with the quote.  Why not give arguments for the quote first, saying "Many people would agree because...  Some Christians, for example Vicars for choice, would support this position. They would focus on the teaching in..." By this stage you will probably be bursting with responses and can give a convincing argument against the quote.

If this style doesn't suit you, you can bat arguments back and forth, giving an argument and a response.  This can lack structure and organization.  It does mean, however, that you can deal with both sides of one issue before moving to another issue.

Whatever your style, you get marks for demonstrating a thorough understanding of a range of opinions, and for recognizing the complexity of the issues.  Back up positions with reference to Christian teaching, and make sure your position is clearly stated and coherent!

Sample Questions

Personal Relationships (2000, Q2)

(a)   Describe and explain Christian attitudes to remarriage after divorce.     [8]

(b)   Explain how a Christian couple might find the support of other Christians helpful in keeping their marriage together.       [7]

(c)   'Friendship is just as important as love in marriage.'

Do you agree?  Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view.  You must refer to Christianity in your answer.       [5]

(a)   The question mentions 'Christian attitudes' - so be careful how you answer this.  This would usually be asked in b (compare with 1998 Q2b and 1999 Q2b)  You need to start by describing the various positions (try using specific church positions), then bring in the Biblical teaching and marriage vows to explain each position.

Some Christians, for example the Roman Catholics and many Anglicans, are completely against remarriage after divorce.  The Catholic Church does not recognise divorce, because marriage is a lifelong commitment.  You can only end a marriage by annulment, which is given only if the marriage is found to be invalid (for example, if it can be proved that the vows were not meant) and it is then considered never to have taken place.  Therefore when a couple remarry after divorce they are breaking their wedding vows and this marriage is not recognised by the Catholic church.

In the Church of England wedding service the couple make vows before God to stay together 'till death do us part'.  This solemn vow is made in the presence of God and the church community.  In the same service the priest speaks the words of Jesus: 

No human being must then separate that which God has joined together   Mark 10:9

It is hard to see how someone could make these promises before God if they had already made them with someone else and broken them.  Jesus repeatedly taught that divorce was wrong, saying:

 Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.  Matthew 5 v 31-32

This explains why many Christians are against remarriage after divorce.  However, many churches now recognise that relationships break down.  Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin, and Paul taught:

'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.'  1 John 1 v 9

Many free churches will allow remarriage after divorce.  The Church of England does not openly approve of remarriage, but the decision is up to individual priests who follow the advice given by Bishops.

For those Christians who allow remarriage in some circumstances, they will consider a range of factors.  The marriage vows may already have been broken.  Jesus himself seemed to make an exception and allow divorce in the case of adultery.  In cases where a man beats his wife or abuses his children, many Christians would argue that the sanctity of marriage has gone.   The law in Britain, which had previously been against divorce, changed in 1971 to allow divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty or desertion for at least 2 years.  Many Christians would argue that in these cases the innocent party should be allowed to remarry, as marriage is God's plan for humans (Genesis 2:24).  Also, churches teach about the importance of family life and security for children, so if there are children involved then remarriage might provide stability.  People who have been through marriage once already are likely to have more realistic expectations about a second marriage, and will really understand the promises they are making.

However, those churches would also be aware of the increasing number of divorces since the changes in law.  The current law merely requires that a marriage has 'irretrievably broken down'.  These churches would have a responsibility to ensure that a divorcing couple had tried everything (including mediation) to resolve their differences before divorcing.  For this reason, they would not be happy about performing a remarriage soon after a divorce, because people might divorce simply to marry someone else.  By allowing remarriage, Christians could be encouraging divorce in cases where a couple would have stayed together and worked their differences out  rather than be alone.  Therefore any Christians that accept remarriage would do so cautiously. 

(b)  This is definietely one of those questions where it is useful to plan your answer first - it is easy to ramble on without making many concrete points.  Take a couple of minutes to jot down key areas, then take your time in explaining each one.  The following answer nearly reached the top level (LD March 2001) - it's very good, but how could you improve it even further?

If a Christian couple were going through a hard time in keeping their marriage together other Christians might be helpful.

Some may have gone through the same thing and will be able to guide them and help them through.  They will be able to remind them of what God says in the Bible, that they should not separate.

Also someone outside of the marriage might be able to see what is going wrong and help the couple to sort it out.

Other Christians would be able to give a kind, loving and compassionate response to what the couple would be going through.

Marriage always has its ups and downs, good and bad things happening and the couple need to see it through because it will probably get better.  They need to remember that 'God is love' and he put them together and they should not be separated.  The Christians supporting them would be able to go through all of that.

Another thing is knowing that they all believe in the same thing.  A lot of the time just talking to someone who has the same faith makes you stronger and their faith in God should see them through.

You would want to mention support through pray, but also practical support, such as babysitting so that a couple can have a romantic night out or giving financial support to a couple struggling with money.  One way of answering this question would have been to focus on the troubles married couples face and look to solutions that way.  

You should also focus on the church institution - the priest or pastor can offer confidential advice and put them in touch with Christian groups set up to support married people. A lot of non-Christian mediators help couples to split up and stay friends, whereas Christian groups encourage couples to work out their differences and bring life back into their marriages.   The church often runs meetings or groups such as Practical Parenting which can provide help and support through some of these difficulties.  There are also books (The sixty-minute marriage), video and audio tapes produced by other Christians giving advice on how to save marriages.  

(c) This is not a controversial quote, so it needs unpacking rather than arguing.  You should explore the importance of friendship and the importance of love, ending on a clear expression of opinion that develops the answer further.  For example:

LOVE - The love that is peculiar to marriage must be Eros - romantic love.  Most Christians would agree that this is essential. The marriage service talks about loving and cherishing. The Bible makes clear in its opening passages that man would leave his mother and father and be united with his wife as ‘one flesh’. Without a degree of romantic attraction, this would be impossible.

FRIENDSHIP - However, romance can die out. The attraction of getting to know someone new, the first kiss, the uncertainty - this all goes. With the practicalities of married life, there is often little time for romance. Eventually, the romance becomes something else as you get older. At times, sex won’t work at all for any number of reasons. This can include sickness, impotence etc. If this was all there was to marriage, you’d be in trouble. Genesis gives the real reason Eve was created - Adam was lonely and needed companionship. Friendship - being able to talk, have fun, do things together - is essential for a marriage to work.

SUMMARY - In some senses, real friendship and real love are the same thing. Unconditional love means putting the other person first. If you don’t do that, you’ll end up fighting, arguing and falling out. A marriage requires this sort of love - a sacrificial friendship that involves giving all you have (as in the marriage service) and making the other person your priority. This is what Jesus meant when he said ‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself’. It is the sort of love described in 1 Corinthians 13 - patient, kind, does not keep a record of wrongs. Friendship and love are equally important, and if they’re going to keep a marriage together, they must include agape - unconditional love.

 

Birth and Death  2000   Q3

(a)   Describe and explain Christian attitudes towards the use of embryos for research.     [8]

(b)   Describe how and explain why a Christian funeral service can be helpful to the people who have lost a loved one.   [7]

(c)   'People should be kept alive at all costs.'

Do you agree?  Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view.  You must refer to Christianity in your answer.    [5]

(a)  This is a very specific question dealing with embryology.  Most of the Sanctity of Life material can be drawn in, but this does require relevant, informed explanation.  In this sort of specific question, it is acceptable to start with a brief definition.

CHURCH TEACHING - During IVF treatment, women are given drugs to help them produce more eggs - sometimes as many as 20 at a time.  As a result, spare embryos are produced.  By carrying out research on these embryos, doctors can improve the success rate of IVF.  This research carried out on embryos is called Embryology. 

The Roman Catholic Church is completely against Embryology because it believes that an embryo is a sacred human being made in the image of God and possessing a soul.

"Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception." (Statement from the Roman Catholic Church).   

'With the utmost care' is ambiguous.  Some Catholics argue that IVF is always wrong because there is an increased risk of miscarriage for the embryos implanted into the womb.  The Church itself accepts IVF under strict conditions, including the specification that spare embryos should not be produced.  In some cases, research on embryos is done to prevent genetic disorders being passed on.  The Catholic Church believes that all embryos are sacred, so it would not support the selection of 'healthy' embryos and the rejection of 'unhealthy' embryos.

The Catholic Church is against experiments that destroy embryos, but the above quote does not automatically forbid freezing embryos for use at a later date.  Many couples do this, and there is one case of triplets being born to three different mothers 22 months apart.  The Catholic Church clarified their position in this statement from the Catholic Truth Society in 1985:

"The human embryo has the right to proper respect. ‘Test tube babies’ are real babies not simple embryos to be manipulated, frozen or left to die.... Human beings are not be treated as a means to an end"

This seems to rule out freezing embryos for later use.   This is because the embryo is already a person, as explained in the earlier Document on Procured Abortion (1974):

"From the time that the ovum is fertilised a new life is begun which is neither that of the father or the mother. It is the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never become human if it were not human already"

In order to disagree with this, you would need to argue that there is some point after conception at which the embryo becomes a distinct human being.  The Church of England teaches that, because an embryo can split to form twins after 14 days, the embryo up to that point cannot be a distinct human being.  As a result, the Church of England is not completely against embryology.

However, embryology can be used to allow women to freeze eggs and bear children at an unnatural age.  The Church of England is against this.  In 1997, the Synod said that 'treatment should normally be given to women only during years when, under normal circumstances, they might conceive'.  

The Church is also against the production of Embryos specifically for research, as stated in their report of 1994:

"We support the recommendation that research, under license, be permitted on embryos up to 14 days old and agree that embryos should not be created just for scientific research"

BIBLICAL TEACHING - Embryology is a new science, and there are therefore no biblical teachings directly concerned with it.  However, the Bible teaches that humans are made 'in the image of God' Genesis 1:27 and therefore human life is sacred.  The human body is the 'temple of the Holy Spirit' 1 Corinthians 6:19, so should not be subjected to experimentation for the purposes of science. 

Several passages suggest that life begins in the womb:

  • Before I was born, the LORD chose me and appointed me to be his servant.   Isaiah 49:1

  • Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.   Jeremiah 1 v 5

  • For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Psalm 139 v 13

These all explain the Catholic Church's stand against embryology.  However, there are also passages that suggest that human life begins at birth.  Adam began to live when God breathed 'life-giving breath' into his lungs (Genesis 2:7).  In the Old Testament an attack that caused a miscarriage received a fine and not the punishment for causing death (Exodus 21:22-23).   If an embryo is not a distinct human being, a case can be made for embryology.

IVF treatment could not have been developed without embryology, and IVF gives the gift of a child to many families.  It also makes IVF treatment safer and more reliable.  Many Christians would argue that, although it isn't natural, IVF has been developed by doctors using their God-given talents, and that God's plans can involve the development and use of new technology as long as the dignity of and respect for life is preserved.

(b)

 

 

Prejudice and Discrimination (1996, Q3)

(a)    (I)   Describe two ways in which people might suffer from discrimination because of their gender. 

(ii)   Explain the attitudes a Christian may have towards members of another religion.[8]

(b)   Describe how and explain why one well-known Christian or group of Christians has worked to get rid of racism. [7]

(c)   ‘Children learn to be prejudiced from their parents, Christianity can’t fight that.’ Do you agree? etc... [5]

Have a go at answering this question.  Remember that the style of question has changed and (a) will probably be one 8 mark question beginning "Describe and explain Christian teaching..." Once you've tried this (half an hour should be enough) read through the marking guidelines below and see if you can improve your answer.  They are only guidelines, so you shouldn't copy the style of writing.  It is rarely a good idea to include bullet points in an exam! After reading the ideas below, why not answer this question again and see how much you can write in half an hour. 

Describe two ways in which people might suffer from discrimination because of their gender.

Give two specific examples from education, employment: promotion, pay, working conditions, sexual abuse; membership of clubs and societies etc. Explain each example briefly.

Explain the attitudes a Christian may have towards members of another religion.   

To follow shortly...

Describe how and explain why one well-known Christian or group of Christians has worked to get rid of racism. [7]

Outline the life of Martin Luther King.

HOW

  • Peaceful protest (Non Violent Direct Action)
  • Marches (esp. 1963 March on Washington)
  • Speeches (e.g. ‘I have a dream’)
  • Boycotts (brief outline of bus boycott)
  • Sit-ins (cafes, schools etc.)
  • Freedom rides

WHY

HIS EARLY LIFE

  • segregation in schools, shops, restaurants
  • violence
  • poor living conditions for blacks

CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

  • All races were created equal by God (Acts 17:26 'From one man he created all races of mankind'; Genesis 1:27 'God made man in His own image')
  • All people deserve justice (Exodus 22:21 ‘do not ill-treat foreigners’  James 2:1 'don't show favoritism')
  • Christ died for everyone on the cross and united all races ('There is no longer Jew or Greek... for all of you are one in Christ Jesus' Galatians 3:26-28 and similarly Colossians 3:11)

‘Children learn to be prejudiced from their parents, Christianity can’t fight that.’ 

Do you agree?  Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view.  You must refer to Christianity in your answer.  [5]

YES because:

  • parents play a large part in forming the ideas and characters of their children at an early age (psychology)
  • prejudiced ideas, jokes, stereotypes etc. come from those around us, which is often parents
  • people require parental approval (e.g. ‘I’m not racist myself, but if I went out with a black man my mum would kill me’)
  • people with prejudiced parents are less likely to get to meet or know people from other races

NO because:

  • children can have other role-models than their parents (Christian example)
  • children can be taught to question their assumptions (by using the Bible)
  • a non-prejudiced church may have a number of people from other countries in their membership or may use videos and teaching material featuring people of other races in a positive light
Peace and Justice 2000 Q1

They will beat their swords into ploughshares

and their spears into pruning hooks.

Nation will not take up sword against nation,

nor will they train for war any more.                         [Micah 4:3b]

(a)   Describe and explain Christian teaching about war.       [8]

(b)   Describe how and explain why some Christians have used non-violent protest when working for justice.       [7]

(c)   'Christians are not respected when they use violence.'        

Do you agree?  Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view.            [5]

 

(a) The question is so vague that any of the following will do - however, you are more likely to be asked specifically about Bible passages that support pacifism (1996 Q4a, 1997 Q4a) or about Christian teaching on Just War (1999 Q4a)

The Bible has passages that seem to support war as well as standing against it:

AGAINST WAR

  • The Old Testament taught about love for enemies, which seems inconsistent with killing them in war;  it also taught:

Turn from evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it. Psalm 34v14

  • Jesus 'the Prince of Peace' came to unite all nations through his death on the cross. He repeatedly taught about peace and love:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Matthew 5v9

Peace I leave with you, my peace I give you. John 14v27

  • Jesus also taught that it is wrong to respond with violence, rebuking Peter when he attacked the guards that came to arrest Jesus, saying:

"All who draw the sword will die by the sword." Matthew 26 v 52

  • Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5v39

  • Paul reinforced these teachings:

"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts." Colossians 3:15

"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. " … Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. " … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12 v 17ff

IN SUPPORT OF WAR

  • However, Jesus did use violence in driving people out of the Temple (Mark 11:15-17) and he said:

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. “ Matthew 10v34

  • Paul instructed Christians to submit to God-given authority (Romans 13:1), which might mean fighting for your country when at war. He also suggested that Christians should fight against corrupt world leaders and powers:

Put on the Armour of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness Ephesians 6:11-12

  • The Old Testament has many examples of war that was ordered by God:

‘Prepare for war; rouse the warriors; let all the fighting men draw near and attack.’ Joel 3:9

That night the LORD said to Gideon, "Go, attack the camp, for I have delivered it up to you.” Judges 7:9

  • Several teachings regard standing up for the rights of the poor, which may mean fighting for their rights:

"Loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke" Isaiah 58 v 6

The Bible seems to suggest, therefore, that war is undesirable but sometimes unavoidable.  It does not make clear under which conditions Christians should fight.  The Just War tradition, developed by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, says that battles should only be fought if they meet ALL of the following criteria:

  • it must be fought by a legal recognized authority e.g. a government
  • the cause of the war must be just
  • the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil
  • there must be a reasonable chance of success
  • the war must be the last resort
  • only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved
 

The churches are divided on the issue of war and often leave it to an individual’s own conscience, but the Society of Friends (Quakers) are pacifist, and at times of war they are conscientious objectors, happy to drive ambulances but not to fight.

(b) This question comes up almost every year, but it was a surprise to see it in the Peace and Justice section! Have a look at the 1996 mark scheme for the Prejudice and Discrimination question, but adapt it to fit this context, particularly focusing on why MLK did not use violence .  The marks are awarded according to levels:

Level 1  (1-2 marks):   An incomplete response, possibly containing inaccuracies.   Only one or two examples of Non-Violent Direct Action given, with little explanation of why non-violence.

Level 2  (3-4 marks):  Gives a range of examples of NVDA and starts to explain WHY.  May include Biblical teaching ('turn the other cheek', 'Blessed are the peacemakers', 'overcome evil with good', 'love your enemies')

Level 3 (5-6 marks):  A balanced response backed up with examples and relevant teaching.  Will start to explain the purpose of NVDA: boycotts = financial pressure on bus companies, cafes etc.; marches = demonstrate level of support/solidarity; speeches = clear message/vision that can be repeated/quoted in the media e.g. 'I have a dream'; sit-ins = clearly demonstrate the inequality of segregation laws

Level 4 (7 marks):  HOW and WHY both thorough, balanced and carefully explained 

(c) The following was written in a Year 10 exam (DW March 2001) in answer to this question. Full marks were awarded:

There are groups of Christians such as the Quakers who are pacifist, which means they don’t agree with war and the agree with peace and they won’t get involved in fighting of any sort. They follow teaching such as ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’ Matthew 5:44 Many people respect pacifists even if they don’t agree with them.

Many Christians don’t mind fighting in a war as long as it follows the Just War criteria, which are: Proper Authority, Just Cause, Right Intention, Last Resort, Proportionality, Win Possible, Just Method. I think Christians are respected if they only fight in wars following these criteria.

However, some pacifists wouldn’t respect Christians who fight in wars. Jesus says, ‘My peace I give to you, my peace I leave with you.’ Pacifists believe violence goes against Christian teachings. Matthew 5:9 says ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God.’ People against violence would use this argument.

Christians who think violence is okay in some circumstances would say that there was a lot of violence in the Old Testament and in some circumstances violence is necessary.

I think that some people don’t respect Christians who use violence but that people should respect Christians who use violence when necessary and if it is a war that they only fight in wars that meet the criteria of the Just War.   DW

You could also have mentioned non-violent protest and its effectiveness in gaining popular support (Martin Luther King). You could have discussed the use of violence by police in order to prevent innocent people from getting hurt.

 

World Community, Hunger and Disease (1996, Q5)

(a)    Explain the reasons which a Christian might give for being concerned about:

    (I)    pollution;        [4]

    (ii)    hunger and disease in the world.        [4]

(b)    Give an account of how and why one well-known Christian organization has worked to relieve human suffering in the poor countries of the world.    [7]

(c)    'Charities achieve little in the poor countries; only governments can make a real difference.'

Do you agree?  Give reasons to support your answer and show that you have thought about different points of view.  You must refer to Christianity in your answer.  [5]

Have a go at answering this question.  Remember that the style of question has changed and (a) will probably be one 8 mark question beginning "Describe and explain Christian teaching..." Once you've tried this (half hour should be enough) read through the marking guidelines below and see if you can improve your answer.  They are only guidelines, so you shouldn't copy the style of writing.  It is rarely a good idea to include bullet points in an exam! After reading the ideas below, why not answer this question again and see how much you can write in half an hour. 

Explain the reasons that a Christian might give for being concerned about:

I) pollution [4]

Mistreatment of creation goes against the teaching in Genesis and the idea of the stewardship by humanity of creation; 'A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children' Proverbs 13:22   'The dignity of nature as creation needs to be bound up with our responsibility for the preservation of life.' World Council of Churches   'Christians repudiate (reject) all ill-considered exploitation of nature which threatens to destroy it and, in turn, to make man the victim of degradation.' Assisi Declarations

ii) hunger and disease [4]

Jesus cared for the hungry - he commanded Christians to do the same (Mt 25). Feeding of the 5,000; sheep and goats  Matthew 25 v 32-34; rich man and Lazarus; Deuteronomy 24:19 - leaving corn for the poor. Jesus healed the sick and cared for the poor.

Give an account of how and why one well-known Christian organization has worked to relieve human suffering in the poor countries of the world. [7]

Discuss to work of either TEAR Fund or Christian Aid e.g. TEAR FUND:

HOW:

  • To bring good news to the poor through practical demonstration of God’s love
  • work with community-based projects
  • providing training and resources to enable communities to become self-sufficient
  • providing emergency aid e.g. after natural disasters (earthquakes, floods etc.), civil war, and so on
  • raising awareness of the problems facing third world countries
  • working to promote fair trade and solutions to economic problems (e.g. supporting Jubilee 2000 to pay off the third world debt)
  • involving Christians and churches around the world

WHY:

Discuss Christian principles of Love, Equality, Human Dignity and Justice using church teaching and Biblical passages.

LOVE - 1 John 3:17 - ‘If a rich person sees his brother in need...’  Acts 2:44-45 'Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.'

DIGNITY - ‘made in God’s image’ Genesis 1:27; RC church believes in the dignity of all human life 

EQUALITY - ‘from one race...’ Acts 17:26   "Rich nations have a grave moral responsibility towards those which are unable to ensure the means of their development by themselves." Catholic Catechism

JUSTICE - Luke 4:18 ‘He sent me to bring good news to the poor...’; Deut 15:1 says cancel debts every seven years

‘Charities achieve little in poor countries; only governments can make a real difference.’ Do you agree? etc... [5]

YES because:

  • CAUSES of poverty need to be attacked:
  • unfair trading laws; Third World Debt; corruption in the Third World governments
  • charities can do little to change these, but governments can exert pressure, change international laws etc.
  • if charities help the poor without attacking the causes of poverty like corruption, civil war etc, then the corrupt governments can use money that would have been spent on welfare to buy weapons

NO because:

  • charities work alongside local communities and know what their real needs are, whereas governments often only support large projects that don’t meet the real challenges
  • if it was left up to the governments, nothing would be done
  • every little helps