Religious Liberty Monitoring: USA: not immune from Western religious liberty trends

 “The principal religious liberty trend of the multicultural West is that religious liberty is disappearing as the traditionally Judeo-Christian culture's Biblical foundations are being excavated. The excavation is integral to the social engineering/renovation project underway aimed at producing a 'post-Christian' culture. Unfortunately, most Christians do not comprehend the implications of this phenomenal strategic shift, and likely will not until the new social order has been consolidated and direct persecution starts to impact them personally.

Christians in the West are losing the right to criticise non-Christian (minority) religions (particularly Islam) and witness to non-Christians (particularly Muslims). They are also losing the right to conscientiously object to new social norms being imposed upon them essentially at the behest of radical feminist and Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender (GLBT) lobby groups.”

This quote is from an excellent commentary on the threat to religious liberty posed by post-Christian, liberal social norms. The non-thinking nonsense in the two stories illustrating the piece is breathtaking. Its a long blog but, I think, well worth taking time to read.

One of my favourite quotes is from George Orwell who wrote,“Liberty is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”  This , as the blog illustrates, is being taken from us in the truly meaningless name of multiculturalism and tolerance. Some Christians are being taken in by this message, mainly because “tolerance” seems so right somehow, so typical of what Jesus would do. They need to remember that this same Jesus declared, “I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6) Let’s define a couple of terms that are frequently abused today and bring them back to their true and original meaning, the meaning they had before the liberals got hold of them:

TOLERANCE: My dictionary gives the definition of an allowable variation from a standard dimension. In the liberal world there is no standard dimension and every worldview, philosophy and “lifestyle choice” is equally right.  Tolerance, according to my dictionary, means indulgence of beliefs or practices different from one’s own. One who is tolerant is said to be practicing forbearance, to be enduring something. The language of tolerance then is endurance, forbearance, indulgence, allowance. To tolerate something is not to give it approval but to indulge it, to endure it for the greater good. Liberals would have us treat the words “tolerance” and “approval” as synonyms and fiercely condemn anyone who isn’t “tolerant” by this definition.

Democratic principles demand that, while I disagree profoundly with the tenets and practices of Islam, I am willing to endure its presence in a democratic society. I am not, however, bound to like, appreciate or approve of Islam and I am certainly not bound to welcome the  colonisation of Western societies by Muslims with the attendant cultivation of Muslim principles and ideas.

PHOBIA: A phobia is defined as an exaggerated and illogical fear. Common phobias include fear of spiders, the dark, flying, indoors, outdoors etc. It does seem irrational for a grown person to fear a common house spider, or to fear going outdoors, but plenty of people do and many seek help to overcome them. This word has become almost meaningless as people are encouraged to think of those who disagree with them as phobic. The previous paragraph would, in the eyes of many, identify me as “Islamophobic.” I also adhere to the biblical view that homosexual practice is wrong in the eyes of God and this, to many, makes me “Homophobic”.

Of course, the old way of presenting the same idea is by dubbing people “anti” this, that or the other. Critics of Mormonism are dubbed “anti-Mormon”, of the Roman Church as “anti-Catholic” etc. In those days it was easier to see that these tags were often ways of avoiding the issues and dismissing the critic by naming and blaming. In those days fewer people got away with it.

Things have changed however and the liberal lobby has such a grip on society that people indifferent to faith issues don’t just tut in disapproval when they hear people declaring strongly held beliefs contra to the beliefs of others. These days, to hold strong beliefs, no matter how tolerant one is prepared to be towards others, is to risk vilification and possibly prosecution. Because you are allowed to be anything in the brave new world – as long as it is liberal and adheres to the new dictionary definitions prescribed by liberals.

Some Christians fail to see that, while democratic principles, tolerance, liberty and freedom are precious, nevertheless, our first loyalty is to the God of the Bible. I note that many who enjoy this new way of looking at the world move away, very quickly, from Scripture and instead embrace the values of fallen man. If freedom and tolerance mean immorality, compromise, idol worship and worldliness then we had better get back to the true definitions of those terms. More urgently, we had better get back to God’s Word. Click on the link to read the Religious Liberty Monitor review.

Religious Liberty Monitoring: USA: not immune from Western religious liberty trends

Life on Mars and PC Tact

“My name is Sam Tyler. I had an accident and I woke up in 1973. Am I mad, or in a comma, or back in time?” So says the voice of Sam Tyler, a 21st Century police officer, over the opening credits of the hit BBC TV drama series Life on Mars, first broadcast in January 2006. It ran to two series and was such a phenomenon it was followed up by another series, Ashes to Ashes, featuring another character, Alex Drake, this time thrown back to 1983 as the result of being shot in the line of duty.

Both meet the same characters “back then” and both suffer culture shock as they have to adapt not just to the more primitive policing methods but the customs and idiom of those very different times. Both series are packed with politically incorrect dialogue and assumptions as we follow the very un-PC Detective Inspector Gene Hunt and his team  in their efforts to keep the streets safe.

You can sympathise with the main characters’ impatience with and attempts at correcting unreformed police officers who call a deaf boy a “spastic”, who regard WPCs as being there to make the tea and be leered at, who make gags at the expense of black people and homosexuals and who regard criminals as deserving of “a good kicking.” Thank goodness for most of us the world isn’t like that anymore. But is it any better?

If roles were reversed and DI Gene Hunt were to wake up in 2010 how would he faire? Of course, he wouldn’t last five minutes because in that time he would have broken just about every anti-discrimination law in the country, not to mention health and safety. But what would he think of a world where a question from a pensioner about immigration becomes an international news story?

Where we allow our society to be slowly colonised by Muslims at the same time as we are at war with Muslim countries and Muslims are becoming suicide bombers on our streets – and we are not even allowed to talk about it for fear of being labelled Islamophobic?

What would he think of the proliferation of mosques across the country when young Muslims are being radicalised in some of those same mosques? Of the rise in popularity of the BNP and the real and frankly frightening prospect of Nick Griffin getting a seat in the British parliament and all because no one else is prepared to talk about the problems of immigration and he cashes in on that fact?

What would Gene Hunt make of a Britain where our libel laws are so wacky that “libel tourism” has become a major problem and Eastern European as well as other criminals, businessmen and politicians are flocking to our shores to sue investigative journalists who are getting too close to the facts? Where a journalist is guilty until proven innocent? Where foreign criminals are enslaving girls and running them as sex slaves in our towns and streets?

What would he make of a country where broadcast news is no longer news but tittle-tattle and gossip. Where the cult of celebrity puts no-talent nobodies on the front pages of our newspapers? Where news broadcasters do pieces to camera while the main event goes on behind them because they believe their comment and opinion is more valuable than those of the people who actually run the country, its businesses and services?

What would Gene Hunt think of a country where we are policed at a distance by cameras and are now the most scrutinised society after China and Russia? Where teachers run the real risk of being physically attacked, maligned on social networking sites, accused of abuse and little or nothing to be done because we are currently in the grip of the cult of the child? Where having a baby is regarded by some as a career move and others as an occupational hazard? Where aborting a baby is considered so inconsequential that it is possible to do it in your lunch break, like going for a dump?

How would he faire in this brave new world where we are all so PC, not because it makes for a better world but because of some misplaced guilt over our patriarchal history of empire that makes us feel we have to be the world’s social worker and “understand” how hard it must be having been our victims? Where we are actually implicated in charges of torture along with our “special friends” and war allies? Where right and wrong are defined not by agreed standards of decency and morality but by who has the money to sue you if you don’t toe the line they draw and dare you to cross, those who cry, “its our world now so have a care how you walk in it or we will have you for dinner!”

There have always been problems and each generation must find its own way to deal with them but the one “solution” that must be avoided like the jaws of hell is the one that insists, like Basil Fawltey, “Don’t mention the war (or immigration, or abortion, or over-surveillance, or Islamification)!” If we can’t express our views, share our fears and hopes, declare our convictions and speak our minds without fear of retribution and the PC brigade then we are storing up problems that may explode in a reaction of violence that we neither want nor can fully realise until it is too late.

George Orwell said, “Liberty is the freedom to tell people what they don’t want to hear.” That liberty is in real danger in Britain and while we are all arguing terms on what terms we can use in public discourse and private conversation there are those with a very different agenda planning our future and that of our children. Maybe we need a Gene Hunt to share with us some well overdue home truths and perhaps it doesn’t matter too much in what terms as long as we face them.

Yes, it is a different world and in some ways the changes are welcome, but is it really a better world? I don’t think so.

BBC News - Muslim protester denies plan to upset Luton parade

Muslims desecrated the proud occasion when  the Royal Anglian Regiment marched through Luton town centre at a homecoming parade on 10 March last year. As British citizens expressed their pride and gratitude to brave British troops a group of Muslims hurled abuse and insults, calling them murderers and baby-killers.

“A Muslim protester accused of calling soldiers murderers at a parade claims he did not intend to upset anyone.

Munim Abdul told Luton magistrates he did not expect to cause offence because his group had spoken ‘the truth’.”

Their defence is that if its the truth then it is not abuse. Remember this the next time you hear an hysterical Muslim crying “Islamophobia”; if it is the truth then it is not abuse and therefore not a prejudice. Here are some truths about Islam which I hope will cause no offence because their true.

You will hear people declare that Islam is a peaceful religion and that “Islam means peace!” This is not the truth. Islam means submission and even if you submit to Islam there is little chance of peace since within 50 years of the prophets death Muslims were at each other’s throats and have been murdering each other ever since. Have you ever wondered why Muslims would blow up Mosques?

It is a fact that not all Muslims are terrorists but the majority of terrorists are Muslims (read who said it here). Islam is historically, culturally and temperamentally a vanquishing and subjugating religion. The Christian Crusades are a complicated historical phenomenon but make no mistake they were a response to a violent Islam that fought and butchered its way to the South Iberian Peninsula and posed a real and present threat to Christian Europe. Many of the countries and communities we today regard as Muslim were, in fact, Christian and only became Muslim by conquest. Eastwards, Islam warred its way as far as SE Asia in the same way. Ask the Hindu how he sees the history of Islam on the Indian continent.

Of course, any religion is a mix of dogmas, cultures, traditions and other influences. That is why it is quite reasonable to say that my Muslim neighbour and yours are decent, peace-loving people whose concerns in life are common enough, family, security, community, etc. But does he share our values because of his religion or in spite of his religion?

Jesus told his disciples to “Go into all the world and tell the Good News to all creation” (Mark 16:15) He said “But I say to you, do not resist evil, but whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” (Matthew 5:39)

Muhammad declared, “Against [the unbelievers] make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, who ye may know, but whom God doth not” (Q 8:59-60)

This Muslim group have abused the very freedoms fought for by those soldiers, freedoms not available under Muslim rule. We must welcome the stranger and proffer our hospitality and those who seek to live among us, as one of us, are welcome to adopt and embrace our values. However, those who seek security in the notion that, if you concede a little territory, accommodate a little sharia,  allow cultural ghettos in the name of peace and liberal values then all will be well, are tragically mistaken. Remember the fable of the camel's nose:

One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

BBC News - Muslim protester denies plan to upset Luton parade

Wading in Skubala

I so wish I had written this. The subject matter is controversial and the author addresses that very point in a powerful, no-holds-barred commentary on Paul’s words in Philippians. Go to Jeff’s blog and learn something really worth knowing.

You need to be warned that this post contains a bad word. But it does so only because the Bible itself contains a bad word. I never knew that. You don't know it either, because you've been protected from knowing it.
It appears in Philippians 3:8 (which I've recently been working on for my 3rd semester Greek class at seminary). Here it is in the original Greek:

ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου, διὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω...

The word you want to keep your eye on is "σκύβαλα"--pronounced "skubala." Here's a literal translation of the verse.

Jeff Wofford: Wading in Skubala

Children to be baptised as their parents are married -Times Online

Well, of course! Didn’t Paul say in Athens:

“The times of ignorance God continues to overlook, and now he encourages all people everywhere to think about getting married, maybe getting baptised, having their kids done while their there, and perhaps calling into church a little more often. Who knows, maybe you’ll get to like it and think eventually about repenting. But, hey, no pressure.” (Acts 17:30-31)

The Church of England unveils a two-in-one wedding and baptism liturgy today as it seeks to make peace with families “living in sin”.

The “hatch-and-match” service allows couples to baptise their children after the wedding ceremony. Parents can even get baptised themselves.

The aim is to encourage cohabiting parents to marry as the Church tries to become more relevant to the way people live their lives, but critics said that it appeared to sanction having children out of wedlock.

Children to be baptised as their parents are married -Times Online

Dear Saints - Wake Up!

Wake Up! (Revelation 3:1-6)

A parable is told of two angels travelling on the Lord’s business. They sought shelter for the night and, seeing two cities on a plain, noted that one of the cities was watched over by a demon, the other by a legion of demons. The less experienced angel suggested they stay in the first but the more experienced angel insisted on staying at the second. Surprised, the young angel asked why his companion wanted to stay where there were so many demons and the older angel explained that the righteousness of that city was great, as evidenced by the fact that so many demons were trying to corrupt it, while the other city was so spiritually complacent that it took but one demon to hold demonic sway. This describes somewhat the city of Sardis.

Complacency was endemic in Sardis and was to be its downfall on more than one occasion. It was a wealthy commercial centre and at one time the capital of Croesus, last king of Lydia (560-546 BC), who was so rich and powerful that his name became proverbial for wealth – “As rich as Croesus”. He was finally overthrown by Cyrus of Persia (2 Chr.36:22). Built on a hill that seemed impregnable and enjoying fabulous wealth, its citizens appear to have entertained an overconfidence that was to be their downfall, being conquered in 549 BC by Cyrus and again in 218 BC by Antiochus.

It is a pity that there are Christians who convince themselves that, in the new life they have in Christ they remain untouched by zeitgeist, or the general spirit of the society and age in which they live. That was the trouble at Sardis. John does not mention anything like the persecutions and error typical of other of his letters, giving the impression that the church had not suffered such disturbances. Rather, the problems appear to have stemmed from within, from their sheltered and relatively safe lives. The Christians of Sardis were typical of the citizens of Sardis!

You can see how people in such circumstances might be very busy, managing their church, enjoying fellowship, congratulating each other on how the Lord is surely blessing their lives, but John writes:

“I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up!”

There was no shortage of ‘stuff going on’ and Jesus saw this activity, but he was not to be fooled. Christians here were slack – “I have not found your works complete” - and, what was worse, the majority fell into this category. John writes, “Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes.” This was a reference to an ancient belief that dirty clothing was held to dishonour the deity. These people “will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy”. This does not mean that they have merited justification but that they have walked according to the justification they have in Christ. What does that walk look like? This is vital because Jesus promises, “He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white.”

It is popular these days to think that such a church needs a ‘shot in the arm’, a ‘blessing’, a ‘revival preacher’ to bring ‘refreshing’. John’s prescription for this church is somewhat more – basic. There are three things prescribed in John’s letter for those whose faith is complacent and whose walk is incomplete:

1. “Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard”

This means ‘bear in mind’ rather than ‘recall’. They hadn’t forgotten so much as failed to keep in mind the things of God, how they had heard the good news and from whom these things had come. If you have ever questioned the worth of regular Bible reading, Christian fellowship and mutual encouragement consider how God directed the church in Sardis.

2. “Obey it”

This is more in the sense of ‘keep’, making it a continuing activity; a constancy in attending to the things of God. Novelty is no solution to complacency but faithfulness.

3. “Repent”

There is an urgency in this word and we can see why when we read, “Strengthen what remains and is about to die.” Paul tells us to examine ourselves to see if we are ‘in the faith’. Such self-examination will make us aware of where we need to strengthen what we have.

It is easy when involved in ‘doing good’, running programmes, doing ‘deeds’ to forget why we are doing it and what we have heard and received; to have the appearance of life while being close to death, and sometimes it is good to be challenged to “Wake up!” Only those who pay attention to such things will be acknowledged by Jesus before the Father and his angels and only those who know this are truly equipped to reach out to the lost.

Previous Posts in this Series:
A Message of Hope
Remember Your First Love
Be Faithful
Be True

Hold On!