Easter Changes Everything

There is a decidedly worldly approach to Easter that even those who are comfortable with Easter eggs, Easter Bunnies, and the seasonal food and drink blow-out it has become find they regret. “Its too commercial,” people tell me, demonstrating at some level an emotional insight they can’t explain to themselves that the season might have a true meaning. They know somehow all this is wrong and yet, what does it look like when its right?

That is when some might find their way to a church come Good Friday, or Easter Sunday, searching for they know not what. There is simply a restlessness to have things other than the way they are. As is so often the case, they romanticise the different, the unfamiliar, convincing themselves that there is some formula to be found that makes everything good again. But they soon find that the church is less than perfect, some might say it is dysfunctional. Christians have their problems and struggle, themselves, with an imperfect faith.

Where is the religious formula that is meant to give everything meaning, to make a positive difference in my life? Other religions teach about peace and transcendence, ritual, form, and duty. mystical practices and contemplative disciplines. What about the Sermon on the Mount, or the Ten Commandments? Aren’t they a sort of formula, a pattern for the good life? Well, sort of…

You see, when a member of this vast dysfunctional family, the human race looks admiringly at the moral and ethical laws of the Christian faith he may well yearn to live by the Christian code, but he will immediately discover a problem; he can’t do it.

Have you ever noticed that no sooner is a law created than someone wants to break it? Put a hole in a fence and hang a sign saying, “Don’t Look in Here,” and what do people do? Put up a sign, “Wet Paint, Do Not Touch,” and what do people do? Erect a “No Parking” sign and what will people do?

Paul sums up the dilemma very well:

“So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Ro.7:20-24)

We see a code to live by and find it attractive (delight in the law of God in our inner being) but then find we, for some reason, compromise (see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind) This is the conflict everyone faces in their life. A frustrated Paul confesses, “I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.”

No wonder he cries in frustration, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”

So what is happening? Some religious people of Jesus’ day thought following a code of ritual cleanliness would put them right with God. Jesus said:

“What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."  (Mk.7:20-23)

We all have a heart problem. So we can yearn to be different, agree emotionally with the highest standards, want to do right, but “another law” in us fights against this impulse to good, making us do the opposite of what we intended. This is what the Bible calls sin. James describes sin’s progress in our lives:

“Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.” (Js.1:14-16)

We have a heart problem and Easter is the story of how God stepped in, fixed the problem of the human heart, and changed everything.

The Bible puts it like this:

“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates  his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Ro.5:6-8)

Good Friday is when we remember that Jesus died for our sins, took the punishment we deserved, so that we could have our hearts changed, from hearts that issue in sin and rebellion to hearts that rejoice in righteousness and obedience.

The Christian’s life is one of learning to walk in the good of what God has done in Christ for sinners who turn to him in faith. But nothing of this is possible until our hearts are changed. That is why its important to know that Easter changes everything.

So the only question is, are you wise, or otherwise?

The Thief of Faith

It has been going on in the US for years, the theft of faith, the privatisation of Christian belief. Organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) throw a hissy fit when someone mentions God in public, for some perverse reason everyone jumps to attention and another Christian is put in the box marked “Not for Public Consumption.”

Well, now the National Secular Society (NSS) has won a ruling stating that Bideford town council, Devon in the UK acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said before meetings. Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. The good thing is that the action was won under obscure local government legislation and not on human rights grounds. Phew, aren’t we pleased about that? Bideford Mayor, councillor Trevor Johns, was bemused and disappointed by the ruling.

"We held two votes on this issue and won both of them by a majority," he said.

"That's what disappoints me.

"It was a democratic process - you don't go running to the High Court whenever you lose a vote.”

Actually, if your a fascist that is exactly what you do. You appeal to the law until the law no longer suits you then you change or abolish it.

The hero of this class action is former town counsellor Clive Bone. He left the council when he couldn’t get his own way. Perhaps the council was too democratic for him.  Mr Bone, delighted with the decision as only a dog-in-the-manger secularist can be, came up with the secular saw that, "Religious freedom is an absolute right and so is freedom from religion an absolute right, in my view." The flaw in his argument of course is that absolutes have a habit of cancelling each other out and freedom of religion is not at all the same as freedom from religion any more than it can be the same as freedom from secularism.

You see, if Colin Bone has an absolute right to freedom from religion then, by the very nature of that right being absolute, it restricts absolutely my right to freedom of religion, i.e. I cannot practice my religion where his right prevails because his right prevails. By the same token, my right to freedom of religion, so grudgingly acknowledged by Mr Bone, robs him of a right to freedom from religion.

The solution, of course, is to recognise that neither freedom is absolute and that freedom of religion allows the religious to practice while allowing the secularist to refrain from practicing. The problem here is that Mr Bone, like so many militant secularists, insists not only on the right to have no religion in his life but on the right to have no religion in his presence or purview.

It is a question of what happens in a particular space, the public square, and what is often forgotten in this futile attempt to square the circle is that both parties cannot ultimately be fully satisfied. The secularist will point to a particular space and declare that it must, on the basis of freedom of religion, be considered neutral ground. But there is no neutral ground because the presence of religion offends the secularist while the absence of religion is not a matter of indifference to him but a cause for triumphalism in having driven religion from that space. He hasn’t gained neutrality but victory!

That sounds worryingly like fighting talk but, much as we might regret a combative approach to the issue, the truth is this is a war between two ideologies. Of course, the secularist would have us think that it is a conflict between the biased religionist and the “reasonable” secularist.

But in creating a space where religion is barred he creates a space where secular philosophy, by default, prevails. It is a space where he is, as this case ironically demonstrates, free to declare his views about religion while I am restrained from expressing mine. This silly situation exists because secularists have put into the minds of the general public the idea that secularism is not an ideology but a reality while religion is not a reality but a fantasy. This is a deceptive logical device where someone claims something to be true that has yet to be shown to be true.

In any event, this is a hollow victory because easily reversed by the expediency of councils simply inviting counsellors to attend prayers before the official business of the day begins. The judge made clear that, "The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend." In which case, secular counsellors need not go through the apparently terrible experience of hearing believers at their devotions.

The BBC’s Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Pigott commented:

“The tide has been flowing pretty firmly against Christianity in public life and it's caused huge concerns for the churches. They say it's being driven out of public life.” adding, “it's been very noticeable in the last few years that the tide's been turning against Christian practices which we've just taken for granted for centuries.”

You can read more on the BBC web site and in the Daily Telegraph

I’m Not Religious, I’m a Christian?

There was a fascinating discussion this week on Andrew Marr's BBC Radio 4 broadcast Start the Week in which the always interesting if controversial Baroness Mary Warnock spoke about morality in a “post religious world.” If you want to listen to her contribution follow the link and it can be found at around the thirty minute mark. She said that we assume, in a culture so heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking, that morality is the product of religion. Her central assertion was that, “Being morally good is desirable but doesn't necessarily come from religion. Otherwise children brought up without religion may be in danger of casting off morality.”

In certain circles she would be met with the response, “But I am not religious. I am a Christian!” this designed to provoke the question – what is the difference? The answer comes back, “Religion is man's feeble and ultimately futile attempt to reach up to God while Christianity is God's reaching down to man in Jesus.” It is a point well enough made, if a little trite. I have never felt entirely comfortable with it myself. The issue, I suggest, is more to do with the correct use of the word 'religion' in Christian circles, rather than that 'religion' is something other than Christianity.

Baroness Warnock suggests that religion is one of a number of social influences that make us moral creatures; others might be parents, teachers, public figures and role models, etc. True, it doesn't necessarily follow that the absence of religion leads to moral decline (although it does lead to moral relativism, which may be decline by another name). But I do have to question where the moral lights of the non-religious person come from. To wonder about the the general influence of religion in a secular society nevertheless built on religious foundations. In other words, does religion have a subliminal influence even though it is overtly rejected?

The Bible takes a different view of both morality and religion. Where Mary Warnock sees religion as one root of morality among many, the Bible sees religion as an outworking of morality. Where she might speak of the religious man's morality, the Bible would speak of the moral man's religion. In one a man might be influenced to moral good by religion, in the other his morality would find its clearest and best outworking in religion.

God Made Man A Moral Creature

If man's moral instinct precedes religion where does that instinct come from? The Bible tells us that man was created a moral creature. In Genesis man, made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), is described as a moral agent. God commanded him, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17) Here we have the three elements of moral responsibility: an injunction to obey; an agency with which to choose and a penalty for disobedience. Man's moral instinct, whether he is religious or not, is ultimately inherent rather than instilled. Teaching and example can enhance or blunt it but does not create it.

His failure to choose obedience has made man ever after inclined to the grossest immorality, while simultaneously capable of the noblest acts of moral service and sacrifice. It is not that man is incapable of acts of kindness and service. Rather, it is that his inclination always is to go against his inherent sense of moral good. The image of God is broken in man yet not entirely, his morality is no longer intact yet remains. Paul describes people who, without knowledge of the law, nevertheless, “do by nature things required by the law...they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them” (Romans 2:14-15)

This is the confusion of fallen man. He knows right from wrong because he is a moral creature yet his own conscience so often condemns him because he is a fallen creature. Paul later describes perfectly the problem: “I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do – this I keep on doing” (Romans 7:18-19) Even in his best moments man is aware of his failing to be all his moral instinct tells him he should be. The prayer book speaks of those things we should have done but have failed to do, of those things we have done that should have been left undone. It speaks of our sinning in thought, word and deed. Paul sums it up, “There is no one righteous, not one” (Romans 3:10)

Fallen man is yet culpable for his choices before a just God and will stand before his Maker at the final day. “I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done which was recorded in the books” (Revelation 20:12) The gospel is the good news that Jesus has paid the price for our sins and that, by putting our trust in him, entering into a saving relationship with him we may be saved from our sins. That relationship is key to what describes the religious man in Scripture.

The Religion of a Godly Man

We tend to think of a godly man as pious, devout, church-going – deeply 'religious'. In Scripture 'godly' translates the Greek eusébeia which denotes, not a life of religious observances, but a true and living relationship with God. This is described in one of Peter's letters. “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness (eusébeia) through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness” (1 Peter 1:3) In the first instance 'godliness' does not describe the man that has chosen a 'religious' life so much as a man that has chosen a daily life lived out of a new and vital relationship with the living God.

Dr Spiros Zodhiates of AMG International said, “When eusébeia is applied to the Christian life, it denotes a life that is acceptable to Christ, indicating the proper attitude of the believer toward Christ who has saved him. It is both an attitude and a manner of life.” What form does this godly manner of life take in the Christian?

In his letter James writes:“If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight reign on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:26-27)

The word translated 'religion' here is thrēskeia. While eusébeia translates as godly and relates, in Christian terms, to our relationship with God in Christ, thrēskeia describes outward forms of worship. James makes clear that a Christian's outward acts of worship are to do with the conduct of his life rather than any overtly 'religious' observances or ceremonies. Indeed, the New Testament is almost entirely silent about gathered worship. There are fragments of hymns (1 Timothy 3:16), doxologies (Ephesians 3:20-21) but an indifference to forms of worship. Rather, the New Testament emphasises what John Piper calls whole of life worship.

The writer to the Hebrews urges, “Let us consider how to stir one another up in love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another ...” (Hebrews 10:24-25) In meeting together to encourage one another Christians follow certain forms which become traditions involving hymns of praise, liturgical worship, prayer, doxologies etc. These may vary widely in different cultures and times simply accomodating how a particular group expresses gospel truth in prayer and confession. But in any legitimate form it is the people of God, gathered around the Word of God, ready to do the will of God.

This reflects the description found in Acts: “They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers...And all who believed were together and had all things in common” (Acts 2:42,44) It fulfils the imperative to meet together (Hebrews 10:24-25), pray always (1 Thessalonians 5:17; James 5:16) and to be devoted “to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13) These of themselves neither make us godly nor religious. We know that “going to church” doesn't make you a Christian. Rather, these are one outward expression of a godliness (relationship with God) expressed in a whole of life worship (a life lived for God).

We are, then, made moral creatures, created in God's image, but our fallen nature has broken that image and ended the relationship with God we had in the beginning. We are still moral creatures but now our moral sense condemns us as sinners. Christ came to mend our relationship with God, making us godly, and it is in that relationship that we find the strength to change our mind and change our ways – repent. The outworking of that new life – born again in Christ – is what, to a Christian, is religion. In this way a Christian seeks to be evermore religious, being salt and light in a world of morally compromised people - sinners.

If Your Easily Offended…

Last night my wife and I enjoyed the Swansea visit of the Seriously Funny Tour featuring  the music of Nicki Rogers (You really must hear her new single I Bless the Day. No, I insist. No, really, you’ll kick yourself if you don’t, all your teeth will fall out and people will point and laugh) and the wit and wisdom of Adrian Plass and Jeff Lucas. It was mostly location humour and I doubt Christians have ever laughed so much in church  – mostly at ourselves. There was blessing in abundance as we walked out with permission to take the gospel seriously while not take ourselves too seriously.

Some think humour doesn’t belong in church but I have a high doctrine of humour. Indeed, if humour is essential anywhere it is in church. Having worked for many years in ministry to the cults I have found humour one essential marker in the progress of the former cultist/new Christian in their journey out of the cult and into the church. It is when someone stops being precious or fearful about their cult past, can look back and chuckle at themselves and where they came from, that we begin to see real progress.

That said, there are pitfalls. It is the case that, especially among men, jokes can become very competitive. As each one-liner or shaggy dog story is told and the laughter rises to a pitch of hysteria (or so we like to think) things can get out of control. In the race to be the funniest someone tells an off-colour joke which gives permission to others to become more risqué. Soon the contest seems to override all sense of propriety until you are stopped short by the sudden realisation that you are laughing at the a dirty joke, or worse, telling one.

If we can see where the joke is going we might have the courage to object or, failing that,  make excuses and go to the toilet or something but sometimes an inappropriate joke can be upon us before we know it. Years ago someone uttered a one-liner in our company at work and before I knew it I had heard a grubby little joke (a pretty lame one at that) that comes unbidden to my mind every time a particular Christian teaching is preached or discussed.  Wild horses would not induce me to tell it and I deal with it by giving it to God and asking for his grace, but it does spoil things.

Perhaps like me you have learned the hard way to guard yourself against these things. People who maintain a standard whose value is so hard-earned can find themselves the object of mocking and derision, described as prudish and judgemental. A meaningless nod is sometimes given to our sensibilities as we are warned that what is imminent is not for people who are easily offended. I get angered by this misrepresentation of people with values as somehow milksop weak and old-womanly and want to say, “I am not easily offended. You are simply offensive!”

Comedy, it has been said, is the new rock and roll. Given the drive to shock, the rise in irreverence and sometimes downright insolence and cruelty in that field I can see the parallels.  I find myself sometimes asking whether anything is sacred to people and that, I suppose, is my point. There are some things in life altogether too sacred to be mocked. Adrian Plass and Jeff Lucas demonstrated that nothing need be out of bounds for well- handled good humour but they also demonstrated that, while it is good to laugh, even then some things are simply sacred and even our humour should revere the sacred.

If nothing is sacred to us I suggest our lives are impoverished, even as they are colourless without a good sense of humour. Without a good sense of the ridiculous we risk becoming far too self-regarding and serious. Without a sense of the sacred our sense of humour becomes a vehicle for bitterness and snide cynicism. I thank God for the lessons and laughs of the Seriously Funny Tour and hope we can find more and more inventive ways to laugh at ourselves while holding the sacred in the highest place in our thinking and living.

Actions Have Consequences Pastor Jones

They like to appear rebellious, contrary and generally careless about rules and regulations but about the most conservative, reactionary people in the world have to be teenagers. They dress different to be like all their friends because the last thing they want is to stand out in a crowd. They are the best recruits to causes because they know exactly what is right and wrong and will go to any lengths to express their righteous indignation – except maybe get up early.

We forgive them their naivety, understand that they haven’t the maturity that comes from experience. Experience that tells us our first instincts are not always our best.That any fool can have an opinion but it takes wisdom to understand. That not every battle is worth fighting and not every hill is worth dying on. That a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger (Proverbs 15:1) We encourage our children to grow and learn and time and experience bring them nearer that maturity written about in Scripture, and we hope and pray that what we have done as parents has prepared them for the grown up world.

Unfortunately it is a truism that some people grow up while others just grow older. Such is the case with Pastors Wayne Sapp and Terry Jones who, after a ludicrous mock trial, proceeded with a mock execution in which the Koran was burned. Wayne Sapp described this act as an effort to incite tension between religions. Most people would describe it as an immature act of vandalism designed to provoke a response; the kind of thing kids do when they don’t feel they are getting enough attention. They have effectively stamped their little feet and screamed, “Its not fair!” Well, we all know what is and isn’t fair but do we know what is wise?

Actions do have consequences however and to date as many as twenty people have lost their lives, including two who were beheaded, as Muslims stormed a UN compound in protest at this act of provocation. But Terry Jones sees no connection between the burning and the rioting, declaring that these people would have found some other excuse to riot if the Koran hadn’t been burned. This is childish too.

On the other side of the equation we are surely increasingly aware of the immature responses in the Muslim world to any sleight, real or imagined. It is astonishing and very worrying to see vast numbers of people kept in a state of social, emotional and psychological immaturity by their leaders and one wonders if this is deliberate. Certainly, it seems easy enough for Muslim leaders to stir up anger and violence when deemed necessary. Books are burned, people riot and some get killed as a consequence, and each party insists their response to the other is proportional and right.

I remember my father teaching me to hold doors open for ladies and other such gentlemanly characteristics. Of course, that was before women’s lib came along and swept away the qualities of chivalry. On one occasion I proudly held open a door and a woman swept through it never giving a backward glance. I remarked to my father that she wasn’t much of a lady if she couldn’t even say a civil thank you. I have never forgotten his reply.

“You didn’t hold the door open because she was a lady,” he said, “You held it open because you are gentleman.”

Surely, as Christians, it is our Christ-like qualities that are the measure of who we are and not our ability to be indignant in the face of provocation. And didn’t Jesus say, “Love your enemies”? Actions have consequences and someone’s indignation has caused people to die horribly. Surely it is not a question of whether a link can be identified between our actions and the consequences in others’ lives. Surely the test is whether, regardless of the actions of others, we have been Christ-like in our walk, mature in our response to a world that is increasingly immature and lost in sin.

The role of the pastor is not to incite tensions between religions but to speak a message of peace to a world where war is common and familiar, of salvation to a world headed to a lost eternity. These men have failed spectacularly and, to the shame of all Christians, very publicly. It is frightening when such immaturity finds its way to the pulpit and the public square and does such things in the name of Christ. We can excuse such behaviour in our teenagers, they are still learning and growing, but in men who insist they are men, and men of God? Shame on both of them.

BBC News - Donor 'influenced by guru centre'

"We didn't seek legal advice, because we were enraptured," said Mr Curtis.

"We had a guru working with us and for us who had a direct link to god. What she said was good enough at the time."

There is such a thing as spiritual abuse and it can have a devastating effect on people’s lives. The answer to bad faith is not no faith but good faith. That is why Jesus said, “Go into all the world telling the Good News”

BBC News - Donor 'influenced by guru centre'

Right Turn - What about religious freedom in Muslim countries?

A stark warning and a wake-up call.

“I think what's taking place is nothing less than the religious and ethnic cleansing of the Muslim world.

Christians are being particularly targeted -- churches attacked in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines; the assassination in Pakistan of a Muslim politician who dared defend a Christian woman sentenced to death for "insulting" Islam.

Other religious and ethnic minorities are also suffering intense persecution -- the black Muslims of Darfur, the Bahai of Iran, the Kurds, Sufis and Ahmadis in Pakistan, and of course the vicious anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism one finds throughout the region.

I think this is the most important issue not being reported by the mainstream media, not being studied by academics, not being taken up at the UN or made a priority by the large human rights groups.”

Right Turn - What about religious freedom in Muslim countries?

BBC News - Salman Taseer: Thousands mourn Pakistan governor

When are people going to face up to what is before their eyes? Islam is a religion of violence and death, that eschews mercy, celebrates vengeance and advances by oppression and subjugation. History shows it, current affairs demonstrate it.

The governor - a senior member of the governing Pakistan People's Party (PPP) - had recently angered Islamists by appealing for a Christian woman, sentenced to death for blasphemy, to be pardoned.

Mr Gilani has declared three days of national mourning and appealed for calm.

The bodyguard, Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, 26, was showered with rose petals by supporters as he appeared in court in Islamabad on Wednesday.

News reports carefully avoid naming Islam when reporting these things by speaking of “religious extremists” but this is inaccurate and misleading; indeed, these are weasel words. Whenever we see these reports they are Muslim Extremists. Muslims blowing up Christian churches, Muslims blowing up mosques and killing each other, Muslims bombing our cities and killing our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.

When a Muslim leader stands up for what are called “liberal values” but what are actually “civilised values” Muslims far and wide go into their usual screaming fit of hysteria and he gets killed by his own bodyguard who, in turn, gets lauded and showered with rose petals as he appears in court.

There is no maturity, no reason, no civilised outlook and no mercy in Islam and it is time we demanded that Muslim Pakistan step up to the mark and prove itself capable of civilised involvement with the wider world. Time we stopped making excuses for a nuclear power with the mind and emotional maturity of a petulant child.

BBC News - Salman Taseer: Thousands mourn Pakistan governor

Blair 'to do God' in debate with Hitchens - News, People - The Independent

Is this perhaps the blind leading the blind? In anticipation of this non-event – Tony Blair v Christopher Hitchens – let me sum up the overblown New Atheists:

Richard Dawkins - “I can explain stuff therefore there is no God”

Derren Brown – “I can pull a rabbit out of a hat therefore there is no God”

Christopher Hitchens and Sam Brown - “Life’s a bitch therefore there’s no God”

As you can see, the intellectual standard in this ongoing circus of non-ideas is mind-numbingly mediocre. But that would explain their popularity with the great unwashed who never want to go to that much trouble in pursuit of the truth.

Blair 'to do God' in debate with Hitchens - News, People - The Independent

BBC News - Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

 

There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe, Professor Stephen Hawking has said.

He had previously argued belief in a creator was not incompatible with science but in a new book, he concludes the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

The Grand Design, part serialised in the Times, says there is no need to invoke God to set the Universe going.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something," he concluded.

It is interesting that Prof. Hawking’s attitude to religion is highlighted in reports on his new book because he is as convinced that the physical sciences have made philosophy just as redundant. The emphasis on religion reflects perhaps the current rabid drive on the part of the neo-atheists to rid the world of believers. But philosophers?

It depends on how you define philosophy I suppose but if philosophy is thinking about how we think about the world then he has just made a philosophical statement and needs the context of philosophy in which to make it and to give it meaning; ergo, philosophy is not redundant.

With regards God, he has made the familiar mistake of assuming that the more science can discover the less need have we for God to explain this world. This is an argument directed at a particular view of God popular in certain fundamentalist circles but fails completely to address what the Bible has to say. It addresses the infamous “God of the gaps” error but not the God of the Bible.

While it is popularly believed (believed, now there’s a loaded term) that the more we have of science and reason the less our need of God, the biblical view is the more we have of science and reason the more we fulfil the creation mandate. In the creation account man is commanded to have dominion over the earth, to replenish it and fill it (Gen.1:28)

This has been interpreted by some as licence to exploit but this is quite wrong. Man’s dominion was to bring glory to the God who made everything and, acting as steward over God’s creation, he was to care for the world. What we see today as exploitation is the fruit of the fall when man’s “dominion” was diminished and lost but…

Hamlet declared, “What a piece of work is man…in apprehension how like a god!” Never a truer word was spoken. Not that man is, or will become a god, but that man was made with godlike qualities, what Christians call God’s communicable attributes. Those attributes of God that, in his wisdom and grace, he has shared with us, his creatures.

An expression of those attributes, albeit marred by sin, is still seen in mankind’s concern for and curiosity about our world. A steward of God’s world, far from being ignorant of his or her charge and duty, is industrious in learning and growing in knowledge of this world. Hence science, far from making God redundant, is, even unknowingly, obeying a godlike instinct to know, understand and responsibly steward the creation.

A Christian has no need to fear science and should rejoice in the knowledge that, even when some in the scientific community are determined to dismiss God, yet they fulfil God’s purposes and will in the end, like everyone else, see God either as their saving Father or as their judge.

BBC News - Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

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

I’m Glad You Asked…

I am at an age when I am increasingly dependent on the wonders of modern medicine to keep me upright and functioning. “It comes to us all” is what they say and it certainly hasn’t given my house a miss, although there are times when I wish it had. As part of my drug-dependent regime I take a glass of water to bed every night and take my two final pills of the day.

Every Tuesday evening I have the thrilling task of emptying the bins around the house and putting out the rubbish, recycling etc. and when it comes to my bedtime routine, I reach for two tablets from the strip at my bedside and, would you believe it, they are the last two in the strip, every fortnight the last two in the box and so I throw the strip in the bin. Now call me fussy but it offends my fastidious nature that a bin so recently emptied should so soon begin to fill.

How can this be? What is going on that every Tuesday I should suffer this frustration? That strip, that box could have been out on the pavement with the rest of the rubbish waiting to be picked up early next morning. It is one of those things that irks you each time it happens but you just as quickly forget about it and get on with your life (I think I ought to say that my wife thinks I’m more than a little unhinged to worry about this, but she doesn’t throw an empty strip into a bin she has just emptied – or have I missed something here?)

This week I decided to get to the bottom of this mystery, sat down with a strip of tablets, a calendar and a calculator and figured it out. (I lied about the calculator actually and only put it in for dramatic effect. Also, I did have a calendar but in my head. I don’t want people to get the impression I can’t count and don’t know what day it is) There are fourteen tablets on a strip and two strips in a box. I take two tablets every night, start a strip on a Wednesday and, therefore, come-to-my-last-two-tablets-the-following-Tuesday-evening and the last two in the box every other Tuesday. The sense of relief, I can’t tell you! (I know, I ought to get out more)

Its with not a little pride I can tell you that I broke the cycle last night – today being Wednesday and the day the rubbish is collected. When I emptied the bin in my bedroom I took the two remaining pills, placed them on the bedside cabinet, and threw said strip, and the box as it happens, into the rubbish to be taken away. Oh, the sense of triumph! Tomorrow the WORLD!

Life can be like that. Something troubles you but not enough for you to actually give it serious thought. But each time it arises this bothersome and unresolved issue winds you up. For a lot of people questions of faith can be like that. Something is reported on the news, or happens locally, and someone asks, “If there is a God why…” Someone close to us dies and for a moment we feel prompted to ask some of the bigger questions, the “God that’s not fair!” questions. But then life presses in on us and soon the questions are laid aside for another day.

I’m Glad You Asked…

When I am asked such questions, sometimes quite challenging questions I can find it a struggle to answer, not because I don’t have an answer, but because I don’t have a neat, glib sound-bite answer to do justice to what is often a very good question. I want to say, “I’m glad you asked. Can you set aside some hours to talk about this?” And, of course, people are busy and very reluctant to commit the time, afraid perhaps of what they might be drawn into.

But, just like my puzzle over tablets and bin day, sometimes you just have to stop and give it some serious thought. Just as I sat down with a calculator, a calendar and blister strip (OK, there wasn’t a calculator, but you get my meaning) so you, if your questions are serious, must sit down with a Bible, a Christian friend and maybe a good book or study guide if you are going to get real answers.

I often ask people if they are readers because many people are not these days, which is a great pity for all sorts of reasons. If they are, or at least are open-minded enough, I suggest they go and browse around their local Christian bookshop. They would be amazed, I insist, at how many of life’s questions, how many big issues are addressed in Christian books, journals and magazines and how determined, serious-minded Christians are to understand the world. A Christian bookshop is just that, i.e. a bookshop. It isn’t a “truth shop” where all issues are answered definitively and where dogma is sold by the pound but a bookshop where people with different views are represented and ideas are presented to get explored, tried and tested.

Why don’t you come to church? I ask them and, as they give a wary look, explain that churches hold courses where these questions are addressed and answers are sought. Sermons inform as well as challenge, enthuse and convict. Why not come and listen to a few? Why not come over for a coffee and spend an hour or two talking about things, maybe make a start on the journey of discovery that begins with the kind of questions you are asking? Because the big questions are not destinations but departure points and you have to be prepared for the journey of discovery that leads to the answers. Otherwise, why ask?

Be as wary as you like, sit near the door at church, tell the bookseller you’re “just looking” but don’t put it off any longer. Make a move, get a Bible, ask a trusted Christian friend, put that best seller down, good as it is, and pick up a Christian book that looks like it might be interesting, informative and helpful. Come over for a chat some time and lets talk about God and what’s fair and not fair, and what’s it all about, and why you want to do the right thing but so often find yourself doing the wrong thing, and what happens when you die, and does evolution disprove God, and…well you get the picture. Give it time, and effort and you might be surprised what answers come if you just ask.

Here are some books I have personally found very helpful:

1. A Fresh Start, by John Chapman and published by Matthias Media tackles some of life’s fundamental questions.
2. God That’s Not Fair, by Dick Dowsett, published by OM, addresses some of the really hard questions people ask
3. Six Modern Myths, by Philip Sampson, and published by IVP, is a look at six popular myths about the church in history and society, from Galileo to Environmentalism
4. Knowing God and Knowing Christianity, by JI Packer and published by Hodder and Staughton and Eagle respectively are excellent insights into the God of the Bible and the faith of a Christian
5. Why I am a Christian, by John Stott and published by IVP is a refreshing insight into one man’s reasons for embracing the Christian Faith.
6. The Puzzle of God, by Peter Vardy and published by Harper Collins is a more philosophical look at the subject
7. You Can’t be Serious, by Michael Green and published by Monarch is a serious look at 12 reasons for avoiding Jesus
8. At the Heart of the Universe, by Peter Jensen and published by IVP is a close look at what Christians believe about God, man and the purpose at the heart of the universe
9. There is a God, by Anthony Flew and published by Harper Collins is, in the words of the author, an account of “How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind”
10. Simply Christianity, by John Dickson and published by Matthias Media, is a reading of Luke’s Gospel with simple but challenging commentary designed to discover what is simply Christianity when all the extraneous stuff is stripped away.

There must be something there that caught your attention and made you think it might be worth turning off the TV and curling up with a cup of tea and a book. If you do take up the challenge to do more than ask the questions, more than dismiss God with a wave of your hand as you walk away still bemused, let me know. Write to me and we can have a chat about it. I always like to chat about my faith and hear what others have discovered on the journey. Your here until you go so you may as well make the best of it. Who knows but that it might turn out better and more meaningful than you ever dreamed or imagined?

Italy appeals against ban on school crucifixes - Telegraph

Why are so many non-believers such miserable nuisance neighbours? They have a real dog-in-the-manger attitude to religion. Not happy to have God in their own lives they are determined that no one else should either. I hear people sometimes say, “Don’t push your religion down my throat!” I feel like saying, “Don’t push your secular, neo-Darwin, aimless and nihilistic word-view down MY throat!”

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. If you want freedom from religion you will have to find another planet to inhabit because this world is filled with believers of one kind or another. It colours our lives, informs our society and, when it comes to Christianity, it is the foundation of the very schools from which you want to remove all signs of it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Italy appeals against ban on school crucifixes - Telegraph

Charity in a Moral Vacuum?

By last night (20/03/’10) the popular charity initiative Sport Relief had raised almost £30 million for charitable causes both abroad and in the UK. Via telethons and sponsored events such as running the Sport Relief Mile huge sums have flooded into the charity and much more is expected to be raised in events up and down the country this weekend.

You would have to be churlish to the point of perverse to not celebrate the good-hearted generosity of people and the great and practical good that is done as a result of such events. From the now historic Band Aid concert, through the well established British institution Comic Relief to Sport Relief and even the money raised for causes by the National Lottery  much good is done.

However, I can’t help but think that when we look back at 19th century missionary societies and, indeed, their 21st century counterparts, and consider how they are represented in our social and cultural histories they don’t come out well. Yet they did, and continue to do much the same in raising resources to help developing societies, feed the hungry, teach the ill-educated, protect the vulnerable – and share the gospel. This last is what our secular society finds little to celebrate about, being suspicious about the fact that what they do is done in the name of Christianity. But what is the difference between going into a country in the name of liberal democracy and insisting that something must be done and things have to change and doing the same in the name of Christian charity?

Christian teaching, building, nursing and, yes, evangelistic missions are carried out by people who have chosen to serve a moral cause because they have committed their lives to a moral course. Unlike the celebrities who front events like Sport Relief and who fly in for a few days filming and then fly out to talk endlessly into a camera about how harrowing and moving was their experience, Christian missionaries devote years, sometimes their whole lives in the cause to which they are committed. Sometimes they sacrifice their lives to serve their God by serving “the least of these” (Mt.25:45)

The difference, it seems to me, and the great advantage to a secular society of such charitable events as Sport Relief is that, where Christian missionaries serve a moral cause because committed to a moral course, here people can serve a moral cause without making a commitment to a moral course. In this way they can salve their conscience, feel they are doing some good, but make no fundamental change to the way they live their daily lives.

It looks as though they are living their lives in a morally neutral world. One in which they can give and serve if it suits but pass on the other side if not. But this is not a morally neutral world and the requirements, indeed commandments of the God who made us apply equally to everyone in it. That is why mission exists in its most fundamental, evangelistic form. It is ironic that, while many perhaps feel that charity without religion is the best of all possible worlds, the greatest good that can be done them in this world is to remind them of their obligations to God and of what he requires of them “in these last days” (Acts 17:29-30)

Every effort at helping and serving the needy and vulnerable is to be applauded but as Christians the greatest help we could ever offer is to pray for and be involved in the mission of the church to “go into all the world and tell the good news” (Mt.28:16-20) It is not always popular but we may as well nail our colours to the mast – the world has.

Why Mormons Don’t Wear Dog Collars – Yet!

I recall, many years ago, a priesthood quorum meeting at the local Mormon Church where a discussion revolved around the question of how we could raise the profile of our church and make ourselves more visible to the wider world. We sat there lost for ideas (so much for priesthood) until one man said, “We could wear badges!”

All eyes turned on him with a mixture of scorn and pity and, with a depth of derision usually reserved for talking about the ministers of other churches, someone said sarcastically, “Oh! Why don’t we go the whole hog and walk around in dog collars?” The idea was quashed there and then and nothing more said as the culprit skulked away into the night to think about his apostate ways.

Not long afterwards we saw the first Mormon missionaries turn up wearing those badges so familiar these days. Typically, this innovation came in with no comment and no one remembered the scorn and derision that had been poured on the idea. This was different. This was at the behest of “the prophet”.

The story illustrates something that is so difficult to put across in a seminar or article; the sneering contempt in those words, “why don’t we go all the way and wear dog collars!” It wasn’t a case of “Mormons don’t do that sort of thing” but undisguised disdain and disrespect for those who do. Such contempt is a thread that runs throughout Mormonism like the writing in a stick of Blackpool rock. In barely veiled references to “men that preach for money!” and “Christians that take the easy option” Mormons informally and routinely speak contemptuously (among themselves of course) of Christian churches. Where does this self-reverential attitude come from?

It begins with the defining story of Joseph Smith who taught that all the creeds of all the churches were an abomination and all who profess those creeds corrupt (Joseph Smith History 1:19). Without this account of the Christian Churches Mormonism would be superfluous since it is claimed to be a restoration of things lost in the apostasy of those churches. It continues with the statement in the founding book of Mormonism, The Book of Mormon that the Christian churches are part of the “great and abominable church” founded by the devil and that  it slays the saints and corrupts the Bible and is the mother of abominations (1 Nephi chs.13-22)

It progresses through the statements of other Mormon leaders who proclaim that Christianity is “a sounding brass...as corrupt as hell” and an agent of the devil (John Taylor, 3^rd Mormon president) and who identify the Catholic Church as a satanic organisation, the whore of Babylon, and Protestant churches as harlot daughters (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon apostle, Mormon Doctrine).

Finally, it comes via the infamous portrayal in Mormon temple ceremonies of a Christian minister being in the pay of Satan. This portion of the temple ceremony involved a dramatisation, originally played by live actors but latterly shown on film, showing a Christian minister, complete with dog collar, being summoned onto the scene by Satan who offers to pay him if he will preach “the orthodox religion” to Adam and Eve.

The minister proceeds to preach the Christian message which Adam finds “incomprehensible” and rejects in favour of the message brought by two agents from God who preach Mormonism. The conversation between Satan, the minister and Adam when I went through the temple in the 1970’s went like this:

ADAM: Who are you?

          LUCIFER: I am the God of this world.

ADAM: You, the God of this world?

LUCIFER: Yes, what do you want?

ADAM: I am looking for messengers.

LUCIFER: Oh, you want someone to preach to you. You want religion, do you? I will have preachers here presently.

(Lucifer turns his head as a sectarian minister approaches the group)

LUCIFER: Good Morning sir!

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Good morning!

(The preacher turns and looks into the camera.)

SECTARIAN MINISTER: A fine congregation!

LUCIFER: Yes, they are a very good people. They are concerned about religion. Are you a preacher?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I am.

LUCIFER: Have you been to college and received training for the ministry?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Certainly! A man cannot preach unless has been trained for the ministry.

LUCIFER: Do you preach the orthodox religion?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Yes, that is what I preach.

LUCIFER: If you will preach your orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I will do my best.

(Lucifer guides the preacher to Adam and Eve, who stand nearby.)

LUCIFER: Here is a man who desires religion. He is very much exercised, and seems to be sincere.

(As Lucifer presents the preacher to Adam and Eve he steps back and observes the ensuing conversation. The preacher is made to sound sincere, although misguided and credulous. Adam appears humble, faithful and immovable in his determination to serve God. He is not swayed by the preacher, and is astounded by the doctrines espoused by the preacher.)

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I understand that you are inquiring after religion.

ADAM: I was calling upon Father.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I am glad to know that you were calling upon Father. Do you believe in a God who is without body, parts, or passions; who sits on the top of a topless throne; whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere; who fills the universe, and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart; who is surrounded by myriads of beings who have been saved by grace, not for any act of theirs, but by His good pleasure. Do you believe in such a great Being?

ADAM: I do not. I cannot comprehend such a being.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: That is the beauty of it. Perhaps you do not believe in a devil, and in that great hell, the bottomless pit, where there is a lake of fire and brimstone into which the wicked are cast, and where they are continually burning, but never consumed?

ADAM: I do not believe in any such place.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: My dear friend, I am sorry for you.

To find out more about the ceremony and its different incarnations and to hear an audio you can visit Mormon Coffee, the blog of Mormonism Research Ministry

There you will discover that this portion of the ceremony was finally removed, one of several radical changes made in 1990. Nevertheless, it defines the Mormon attitude to other churches and explains that conversation back in the early 1970’s when that minister was still routinely mocked and portrayed as a lackey of Satan.

As I have said, this is the hardest thing to put across in an article, attitudes passed from generation to generation, but it is an important insight. Another instance of it involves an encounter I had with Mormon missionaries earlier this year.

A young man of 20 approached me outside my house to talk about his religion and I told him I was a Christian. With a display of hubris that took my breath away he asked had I ever before met anyone like him who was giving up two years of his life to serve a fulltime mission. I thought of the many people I know who gave up half a lifetime to serve missions in places a good deal less comfortable and more dangerous than the second city of Wales. I answered that I had and it seemed to take the wind out of his sails for a moment.

I then told him that I had been a Mormon but had long left that church to become a Christian. He asked me why I had left and I was glad to share with him the message of grace that had won me to the Lord. This was when his whole demeanour changed and, his face contorted in a mocking sneer, he began barracking me about turning my back on “the church”. When I began to respond he positively bellowed at me, “DON’T YOU QUESTION MY AUTHORITY!” It was quite comical to see this 20 year old really believing he was an “elder” and had authority.

His companion, who had been pretty quiet throughout this exchange, I use the term ‘exchange’ loosely, at least had the good grace to shuffle his feet and look embarrassed. The young missionary then pointed imperiously at the house I had left and told me in no uncertain terms that my faith meant that I could sit at home for the rest of my life unconcerned for the lost since I had my ticket to heaven, unlike his which urged him on to go bravely to - Swansea?

You see, contempt is the attitude of the typical Mormon towards other churches and my missionary encounter confirms that it is not peculiar to older generations but colours the thinking of young Mormons coming through today to represent their church to the world.

But Mormons are so very nice, so very upstanding and responsible and of course this is true. But they still look upon Christians with that peculiar mix of pity and haughty disapproval typical of a people who know that they are God’s best and we are the rest. Perhaps one day, as with the badges, Mormons will adopt dog collars, but you can be sure that when they do they will hold in as much contempt those who don’t as they now do those who currently do.

Christian hotel owners face ruin after 'defending their faith' in row with a Muslim guest | Mail Online

 It started as a religious discussion over the breakfast table at a private hotel.

Several months later, the Christian owners face ruin after a Muslim guest complained that she had been insulted. Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are being prosecuted under controversial public order laws designed to target yobbish and abusive behaviour on the streets.

While everyone is making the economy the central issue in the run up to the next election an equally serious issue is going unnoticed; this government’s obsession with policing and micromanaging our lives. This story is a case in point.

A Christian couple who run an hotel in Aintree got involved in a religious discussion with one of their guests, who turned out to be a Muslim lady having treatment in a local hospital. Exchanges were said to be “warm”, the couple insisting they were simply defending their faith against remarks made by the guest. The lady complained to the police and the couple now face a possible £5,000 fine and a police record, as well as losing regular business from the hospital as a result of the incident.

I have to say that if you are running a business that depends on the good will of the public it seems the height of folly to be so forthright in your views as to risk your reputation and damage your livelihood, especially when the woman is a patient in the hospital on which you depend for 80% of your business; you are asking to make her a victim and you a villain. “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1) I am all for being “fools for Christ” but I don’t see anything in the Christian faith that demands foolishness. That having been said since when was it against the law to be foolish?

The issue here, however, is that the views we hold, the thoughts we have, our right to express them and the common and well-established principle that we all occasionally have to hear things we don’t like without being a girl about it are all under threat. George Orwell observed:

“Liberty is the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear”

The thought police don’t agree and, sponsored by the liberal agenda prevalent across parties today, they are all over us like a rash and they are showing an alarming bias.

You remember the story of the woman caught “in the act” of adultery who was brought before Jesus (John 8:3). The question often asked is, if she was caught “in the act” where was the man? In the same way, since this was a “discussion” why is only one party in the dock?

The newspaper reports, “It is alleged they suggested that Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was a warlord when the guest challenged them about their Christian beliefs. The woman also claims that the couple, who vehemently deny the allegations and say they were simply defending their faith, described her traditional dress as a form of bondage.”

She said something, they said something, feelings ran a little high and the thought police ran to the defence of the perceived victim. But there is no victim, only an exchange of views, a disagreement and what used to be called, before the world went mad, “ a bit of an argy-bargy”. In political circles such exchanges, when they occur, are euphemistically labelled “a frank exchange of views”, everyone picks up on the sub text and moves on. Why is religious discussion treated differently?

It is because we live in a secular society and officialdom “can’t be asked” to bring wise and equitable judgement to these situations. In their efforts to achieve a “fair” and liberal society they have developed a vision of the future that sees religion effectively privatised. Influenced by such “fine philosophers” as Dawkins and Hitchens (that was a joke) they feel they can dismiss religion as socially insignificant, even dangerous.

The problem is that, notwithstanding the bad-tempered pronouncements of curmudgeons like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens et al, people have faith and express and practice it in a variety of ways.

Notably, both Islam and Christianity are evangelising religions so trying to privatise religions with declared society impacting intentions, and with those religions making up the greater part of the earth’s population, seems ambitious to say the least. I suppose the default position in that case is to placate the religion that is perceived to pose the greatest threat and oppress the religion that is little more than irritating and and inconvenient.

If these darling liberals are determined to defend the rights of Muslims to live and express their faith, sometimes in very offensive and threatening ways it must be said, they must defend the right of Christians to the same degree, even if they can be foolish about it sometimes.

I have said that both both faiths are evangelising religions but that has not always been true of Islam. In his book From Babel to Dragomans the orientalist Bernard Lewis writes of Islam as a conquering religion observing that:

“In traditional Islamic states, the business of government was carried on by two main groups, known as the men of the sword and the men of the pen. The former were the armed forces, the latter the civilian bureaucrats…the two together were commonly considered to be the twin pillars of the state…The Fatimids, for the first time in Islamic history, added a third – the Mission.”

Note that until the coming of the Fatimids mission was not part of the Islamic state. The Fatimids emerged in Egypt towards the end of the first Millennium (Christian calendar), following in the footsteps of the Abbasids whom they attempted to overthrow, and held that other branches of Islam had gone astray. Believing themselves to be the true heads of pure Islam (why does this sound familiar?), they followed the traditional policy of conquest and subjugation against other Muslim states. But the rest of Islam was bigger and better prepared and they resorted to the novel policy of mission.

It is interesting that one of the complaints made by the guest at the hotel was that the proprietors insisted that Islam’s founding prophet was a warrior. Perhaps not a wise thing to say to a paying Muslim guest who might take offense and her business elsewhere nevertheless quite accurate. Which raises the question, are they being prosecuted at least in part for stating, not a religious conviction, but an irrefutable historical fact? Is the state now insisting on a role in defining what is and what is not legitimate historical reporting?

This all leaves me, and I am sure others, in something of a dilemma when it comes to voting. On the one hand I don’t believe the alternatives to this current government are viable for all sorts of reasons (I might be persuaded otherwise). On the other, I am convinced that something must be done to stop this petty-meddling juggernaut before the freedoms we have for so long taken for granted, that our fathers fought and died to preserve, and that make our country great are totally taken from us.

Christian hotel owners face ruin after 'defending their faith' in row with a Muslim guest | Mail Online

21 Questions about Mormonism - The Mormon Java Jive

To find out what this series is about look here.

Q: Are consumption of alcohol and tobacco prohibited or simply discouraged?

A: It is against the teachings of the Church to use alcohol and tobacco or to drink tea and coffee.

Q: Does the Church also ban the consumption of "hot drinks"? And does that apply specifically to caffeinated drinks?

A: It is against the teachings of the Church to use alcohol and tobacco or to drink tea and coffee.

C: These two questions are very interesting and raise an important question about what is and isn’t authoritative in Mormonism. A Mormon will tell you that the only authoritative sources are the “Standard Works”; the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) and Pearl of Great Price. The Mormon health law, the Word of Wisdom, is found in the D&C. There are two facts that stand out; 1) there is no mention of tea or coffee and 2) it is “not a commandment or constraint but a principle” therefore not binding.

There has been much speculation over the years about what is forbidden, with members moving in their thinking from hot drinks to speculating whether the true purpose of the principle is the avoidance of caffeine. This led to the more zealous concluding that it was therefore wrong to drink Coca Cola, even Lucozade and similar drinks.

Mormon leaders have spoken about avoiding tea and coffee and warned the zealous not to take it too far, insisting that it doesn’t include Coca Cola. But then it doesn’t include tea and coffee and, in the original form, it is neither a commandment nor a restraint. In Christian tradition there are moral counsels, exhortations considered helpful in attaining the good Christian life; not binding precepts but guidance. The Word of Wisdom in its original form appears to fall into this category.  Since there is no revelation, that is in the Standard Works, that specifically commands or mentions any of these things that Mormons worry about then Mormons are not truly bound except by conscience. Now there’s a novel idea.

One idea that Mormons can't abide is that Mormonism is influenced by the society around it. Things that seem unique to Mormonism today were often the product of the age. The Word of Wisdom is a good example. The way the story is told you might be forgiven for believing that society at large was smoking, drinking etc. and being otherwise "worldly" and Mormons did the same until Joseph Smith had a revelation called the Word of Wisdom. Nothing could be further from the truth. At that time a temperance movement was sweeping America and most churches swore off drink, tobacco and, yes, tea and coffee as stimulants. If the Word of Wisdom hadn't been taught then Mormonism would have been the odd one out not the most enlightened.

Previous Posts:

Mormonism: A Cult?

Jesus: God the Son, or the son of a god?

Kolob: Where God Lives?

God, Mary and the 'S' Word

Jesus in America

What Every Mormon Wants: godhood

Mormon Women

Mormon Secret Underwear

More Than One Kolob?

In Black and White

The Elusive Gold Plates

 

Coming Up:

Mission or Metaphor?

Family of the gods

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Dutch leave messages on God phone

Not everybody understands art and I suppose I am not always as savvy as I pretend or would like to be. But in a broad sense whatever art talks about people talk about and, while some may find this offensive, it seems no bad thing that an artist in Holland has aimed to use this exhibition to provoke people to think about God and the priorities of the modern world.

"An art exhibition opening in the Netherlands will allow people to call a telephone number designated for God - but they will have to leave a message.

Dubbed God's Hotline, it aims to focus attention on changes to the ways Dutch people perceive religion."

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Dutch leave messages on God phone

Darwin and Godlessness

Having slated TV in general yesterday for its parlous state it has to be said that there are some gems still to be found. The coverage of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth has been excellent so far and two programmes tonight, both on BBC Two, promise to keep up that standard. Jimmy Doherty, in "Darwin's Garden", follows in the footsteps of the great man by recreating his experiments with plants at 8 PM while Andrew Marr (does he ever go home?) looks at "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" at 9 PM.

What caught my attention, though, were the respective reviews for these programmes in the Radio Times. Jane Rackham reviewed Darwin's Garden and seemed to take great pleasure in declaring that:

"The results of Darwin's many years of painstaking experimentation demolished the biblical view of creation and created uproar."

There was a certain irony, then, in the review of Darwin's Dangerous idea by Alison Graham who bemoaned the fact that Darwin's theory proved "so potent and divisive that it was immediately hijacked by godless intellectuals such as Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, the latter memorably declaring 'God is dead'."

In a few sentences these reviewers illustrated how important is how we think about things. Of course, Darwin's theory did not "demolish the biblical view of creation", although it did create an uproar. It did challenge the way Christians had traditionally thought about and understood the biblical view of creation and that is no bad thing. We may change the way we think about and understand these things but why, when we do that in science, is it called progress but when we do it in religion it is evidence of a devastating blow?

The history of Darwin's Dangerous Idea shows us that the hard science is not all we have to consider. As Alison Graham wrote, godless men did hijack it for their own political and ideological purposes, declaring God dead and man expendable because of the fallacious notion that this was "natural". The consequences demonstrate what ensues when people take comfort from a wrong understanding of Darwin and a simplistic view of the Bible; society becomes godless, this familiar misunderstanding of natural selection becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and "every man does what seems right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6)

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online

"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence."

So reports the Times of Sunday 14 September 2008. This isn't about being fair and evenhanded; it is about being fearful and trying to placate violent Islam. It is not about being multicultural; it is about being so culturally vacuous that anything is allowed to step into the gaping hole that once was a proud and rich Judeo/Christian and democratic British heritage. It isn't about being liberal; it is about being careless of those precious values that more than one generation sacrificed to preserve for us.

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 and those who seek security in the notion that if you concede a little territory in the name of peace and liberal values then all will be well are tragically mistaken. It is well to 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.

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online