The catchy pithy title of this post is the same as that of a book I am currently reading by Dr Douglas Groothuis, associate professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary. That I am doing so coincides rather remarkably with several recent events that have all served to remind me that we are living in an Age where “truth” is being allowed to have quite different meanings to different people.

It was brought home to me in my own family when my son told me that one is only guilty of having done something if one is found out. He went ahead and tried the same argument on a Judge and discovered His Honour was not particularly impressed, overruling the particular objection being thus defended. But where had he learnt such a thing? It was not from me, someone who sees truth as that which corresponds to objective reality, not a matter of subjective persuasion or angle of perception. Feelings of guilt may be present or not, but if one did something… then one did something, discovered or not. But my son has grown up in a postmodern culture pervaded by moral relativity, and thus his point of view is probably not too suprising. It is certainly the view espoused by an important American philosopher, Dr Richard Rorty, who takes the position of the pragmatist, asserting that truth is what one’s peers lets one get away with. Now I can get myself in a right tangle with the truth, asking the question of whether or not the Judge, peering over his spectacles, was a peer… and if that should matter at all.

Postmodernism raises challenges to those who argue that truth is absolute, objective and universal. Truth decay, Dr Groothuis explains, is a cultural condition in which such a view of truth is considered implausible, held in open contempt or not seriously considered. However, he does go on to reassure us that the truth itself does not decay, but just our human grasp of it has slipped.

One intellectual mentor of Dr Groothuis is the late Dr Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) who pointed out that we need to distinguish the content of truth (what statements are true) from the concept of truth (what truth is) because our view of the latter shapes everything about us - or about our beliefs. And the problem with postmodernism, argues Dr Groothuis (and I wholeheartedly agree with him!) is that it accepts a “poisonous” and untrue view of the truth. It is one thing to believe something is true when it isn’t, but quite another to believe that whether or not it is depends entirely on personal choice. For example… whether or not I believe that gravity is true (that it exists and will have a predictable effect on me) is hardly a matter of choice such that I can jump off a cliff and choose whether or not to crash in a broken heap at the bottom.

But objective truth has little to do with spiritual reality if you listen to Ophra. Check out what she is saying here and prepare to be amazed. The truth is anything that you want to believe it to be. Postmodernism, broadly understood, has dispensed with Truth and has replaced it with truths… as many truths that everyone and anyone likes to manufacture and believe in order to suit themselves.

Another concerning thing about truth is that these days it may not be politically correct and thus should be strictly censored. For example… the Canadian government has ordered a Christian ministry that teaches doctrine and the differences between Christianity and pseudo-Christian cults be shut down because its reference materials were “critical” of the beliefs of those who are not Christian.

MacGregor Ministries has had to relocate its corporate structure into the United States because it points out that:
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that all their so-called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official ‘Mormon Doctrine’ statements contradict each other…”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it!”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that their prophet Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the occult when he founded Mormonism.”
~ “Mormons won’t tell you that that they encourage visitations from dead relatives from the ’spirit world,’ a practice forbidden in the Bible. (Deuteronomy 18:10- 12.)”
~ “Neale Donald Walsch who wrote the bestseller Conversations with God says, ‘Hitler went to heaven’ (Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations with God: An Uncommon Dialogue, Book 2, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc., 1997; p. 35) And the reason according to Walsh ‘There is no hell, so there is no place else for him to go.’”
~ “The Bible states that the ONLY WAY to heaven is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Universalism teaches that there is not just one way of salvation but many different ways. The Christian inclusivists state salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, but they change the meaning to be that His grace extends out to those who do not believe (not needing faith) because he died for them too.”

Now these teachings are objectively verifiable facts. But MacGregor Ministries were given an ultimatum that required them to say that all religions are equal, that Lorri MacGregor was to stop writing their magazine on the cults, that they were to remove their websites and stop selling any products to help teach about the cults, and any future DVDs that they do on the Bible must not be persuasive in favour of Christian truth.

This situation brings to mind the persecution of the Apostles in the first century of the Christian church. They were ordered to stop their preaching. However, as we are told in Acts 5: 29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men!

Another example of truth being censored where it is not politically acceptable is that which is portrayed in Geert Wilder’s recently released film “Fitna”.

The film really does little more than highlight certain surah written in the Qur’an and show news clips to demonstrate how those surah have been played out in recent time. It does not provide “context” that would suit an Islamic apologist who might prefer to intellectualize away the bald facts, but there is an objectivity to it that simply cannot be denied. If you wish to view the film, it is available in many places on the internet, and one such place is Mark Alexander’s blog, “A New Dark Age is Dawning“, right here.

I rather like the comments on Cranmer’s blog where he writes the following:

There is one religio-political agenda which has no compatibility with British democracy; indeed, it is in the process of destroying it. It may be observed that one may attack Christianity and offend Christians by blaspheming the name of Christ with impunity; there is no sensitivity to the level of this offence, and therefore no censorship. But any such attack on Islam and its prophet not only meets with the full force of the law, there are draconian levels of pre-emptive censorship just in case the Queen’s Peace is disturbed.

The default ‘blasphemy law’ in the UK is now Shari’a, and it is under its absolutes that all religio-political discourse must now be conducted. The Qur’an is now treated with greater respect than the Bible; the name of Allah is more fearful than that of Jehovah; and the life and teachings of Mohammed are more sacred than those of Jesus.

Cranmer presumes the Archbishop of Canterbury is content with the incorporation of this aspect of Shari’a into UK law, albeit by the back door.

Note that reports do not mention ‘the Islamic Prophet’; just ‘the Prophet’. The ‘Son of God’ would undoubtedly be pre-fixed with ‘whom Christians believe to be’ in almost every media narrative.

and concerning Network Solutions’ withdrawal of the film from the internet…

This is an unacceptable pre-emptive censorship, and must be an infringement of constitutional right. Network Solutions has caved in to radical Islam and spat in the face of free speech. It should not be for Network Solutions to determine what is and is not acceptable any more than it should be for Google. If causing offence is deemed to be unacceptable, who knows who might get offended next and which sites will be pulled?

And it is noteworthy that Network Solutions is perfectly content to host radical Islamic websites, some of which belong to (or are closely affiliated with) terrorist groups like Hizbollah.

The postmodern philosophy of today is waging war on the view that truth is absolute, objective and universal by nature, that it is one and undivided, the same for all people everywhere at all times. And where it does appear in its objective and rational form, it must be put away as far too abhorrent and repugnant to consider.

Easter Saturday… the day in between. The shops are legally allowed to open today, so all those eager consumers may race to the malls to empty their wallets. But just in case you caught a note of something-or-rather in that, I’m on my way too. I have some Easter Eggs to get, and a quilt top to take in to be quilted.

Yep, that is it here, sitting folded on my cutting board, with the backing fabric to go with it. And please note the fluffy yellow chick that sneaked into the picture. How could I leave it out, this weekend of all weekends?

Now what happened that the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ has become a celebration of chickens, bunnies and decorated eggs? What on earth is going on here? Just how “PC” have we been scared into being now? When folk wish me “Easter Greetings” with pictures of the Easter Bunny, and tales of him trotting along with baskets of coloured eggs, and baby chicks in tow… what is that all about? Do they really know and don’t like to speak of it, or don’t they know, only kind of know, don’t want to know… but just go for the sweet treats instead?

Has anybody out there heard of “the wrath of God” ? One thing that our Creator absolutely is not, is a hot-head. But did you know that, in this post-Christian era where God has been sanitized to represent LOVE which supposedly cancels out everything else about Him, the word for God’s anger or wrath actually occurs more frequently in the New Testament than does any statement concerning His love or mercy? True!

His wrath is His response to all unrighteousness. It is vehement furious anger. It is fury. And it is directed to all unrighteousness and sinfulness of men. And who has not sinned? All of us have sinned! What, you think that your own little sins don’t really matter, that they can be brushed aside? Well, just think again!

Imagine the searing heat of the inside of our planet, and think how a volcanic eruption spews it forth high into the atmosphere, then down in rivers of molten lava. Imagine being caught up in that. Would you not burn instantly to a crisp? Your little sins put you right in the firing line of God’s fury, to be nuked by it as easily as though caught in a lava flow. And thinking of that, you are now in position to think of what the Crucifixion was all about. Think of that scourging Jesus took. Ribbons of flesh hanging from his bleeding back as the whip cracked through the air to cut him further to shreds without mercy, the huge coarse iron nails hammered through his wrists and his feet, hoisted up there in the searing heat, parched from thirst, each breath causing more excruciating pain, and the shame, shame, shame… the humiliation of this treatment for the innocent Son, King of King, Lord of Lords, very God of very God!

The Crucifixion was not about bunnies and cute fluffy chicks and decorated eggs. Get real, everybody! It was about the Son of God bearing the wrath of a righteous God, taking what is due to us for our sin - yes, even those tiny little seemingly harmless sins that only go to make us human. This is about propitiation, about atonement, about taking it all on Himself for us so that, if we make Him our Lord, seeking His forgiveness, we do not need to suffer this payment for our sin.

So how did bunnies, chicks and eggs get in there? You have probably been told the same thing I was… that the eggs represent “new life” which has something to do with resurrection, the victory of life over death. Yes, but don’t just stop there. Our culture has generalized the specifics, sanitized the message, nullified it, removed it from our minds. Sit down to a breakfast of treats tomorrow, but don’t forget what this is really all about. If you have not made Him your Lord, turned yourself over to Him in every which way, then get your head out of the sand and note these words of Psalm 7… for (sorry to be so blunt) they surely apply directly to you.

11 God is a righteous judge,
a God who expresses his wrath every day.

12 If he does not relent,
he will sharpen his sword;
he will bend and string his bow.

13 He has prepared his deadly weapons;
he makes ready his flaming arrows.

Yep, serious stuff. His arrow is aimed at your heart, and all it takes is for Him to move His finger. That is the real message of Good Friday… the bad news part. God’s fury is couched in His justice, but only if you have made your peace with Him, have taken part in His offer of salvation - salvation from the furious wrath of our holy God - can you truly take part in the good news that dawns tomorrow on Easter Sunday.

So, on this day in between, reflect on the real story of this Easter weekend. The Easter Bunny tells a tall tale, delivering decorated eggs with those cute little chicks in tow - but don’t be duped by fantasy at the expense of reality! And meantime, I’m off to the quilt shop. I have a quilt to be quilted. Happy Easter to you too!

A friend of mine recently lost a beloved pet, a dog who had been a family member for many years. These sad occasions often result in grief that can be quite profound. The oft-quoted phrase “a dog is a man’s best friend” has a definite reality when one considers the unconditional love and devotion such a loyal animal can afford its master, and one’s heart goes out to another of God’s creatures who can provide such sure acceptance, companionship and more, creating a very special relationship. When one loses a friend of such measure, that is a great loss indeed.

How do we handle such losses? Well, I guess we grieve… just as we do should that be a close human who died. But what about all those Big Questions concerning an afterlife, if we will meet again, if animals have souls, if and if and if and if…?

My friend was given a copy of the poem called Rainbow Bridge which is a sweet story of what is said to happen to animals when they die. Click on the link in the previous sentence to read the story for yourself. The author is said to be unknown, and the story clearly brings comfort to many bereaved pet owners who naturally want to think of their pet healed and cared for and happy, and that they themselves will meet up again one day. When the Rainbow Bridge story was mentioned in a group of other friends, a number of them were familiar with it too. Some had also lost beloved pets and found the story a comfort. Many spoke of it as though it was true… what was that? True? Did they mean that it really is true? That is, really is for real?

I am sure that had I questioned the truth of this story, I would have been seen as something worse than a spoil-sport. It would be a hateful thing to do, as though trying to deprive someone of the comfort they should be given in such painful circumstances. And because of the need for comfort, maybe others joined in for the same reason - not that they believed the story to be true in reality, but because they were kind folk who did not want to upset the other unnecessarily.

I don’t know if this story is true or not. I have no way of knowing for certain. It is a kind sentiment, and it presents an image not unlike one that is commonly held of Heaven - a place where all is well. There is an assumption that such a place exists for animals, and an assumption that the animals we love will indeed go there. But I am not so sure of the level of comfort I would personally derive from a story that came from “author unknown” and must be regarded as fantasy unless we can find some truth to support its claim to be otherwise.

Before I am turned upon and torn to pieces by all bereaved pet-owners, I suspect that there may be something in the eternal future to take care of this matter. Our heavenly Father who created all things, the God of love, must surely have something in mind to deal with this situation. Just right now I don’t know what that is, but I believe He is trustworthy and it is safe to leave the matter in His hands. There is also the experience I have had of deep truths being embodied in fantasy, and we can respond to such at different levels of appreciation… such as that which exists in George MacDonald’s Phantastes. If there is truth in Rainbow Bridge, then I suspect it is far more likely to be metaphoric than literal.

However, there is something else that interests me right here. Why is it that so many folk are so willing to believe a fantasy as truth? I noted how readily it was accepted in that group without question. Does the truth not matter? Does it not matter if it isn’t the truth? Is it not important if it is the truth or not?

On a slightly different note, but still to do with truth, it was suggested to me today that I should respect the beliefs of another with whom I disagreed. I find that an odd thing to require of anyone. With regard to the belief, not to the person, I do not see that respect must be given all beliefs equally and that we should be compliant with such an expectation. Not all beliefs are equal in matter of worthiness, and respect based on worth must vary accordingly. Say for example, someone went about claiming that he believed that gravity is a figment of people’s imagination and that he could walk off the top of the Eiffel Tower and fly like a bird without wings. I’m afraid my respect for such a belief would have to falter. That belief is not as worthy as one that acknowledges gravity as a fact. That belief would surely lead to some massive injuries for the one who held it if he was to act on it. One’s “respect” for such a belief could lead one into serious trouble. So in that regard it is important not to have respect for all beliefs just because somebody happens to hold them.

Does the truth not matter at all? Personally I think it does. If we allow ourselves to be convinced by a fantasy we are at risk of endangering ourselves. In some things there is little personal risk - such as the Rainbow Bridge story perhaps. In other things there are many risks, and some with huge consequences. There is also the insight factor, that I am aware what I am doing when I accept something without regard to it’s veracity, and the extent to which I may do this. I personally respect the truth, but do not respect in the same measure those things that do not correspond with my knowledge of reality. Some beliefs are indeed more worthy than others in accordance with their correspondence to reality.

The recent Folsom Street Fair (San Francisco) provided such an explicit expression of “gay pride” which was abhorrent to many but, allowed to take place in a public place, appeared to be condoned by society and those authorities charged with upholding the law. Morals aside, the law was broken many times over but no sanctions applied. The Fair celebrated the moral decline of the western world. Apart from the presence of children who were exposed to these things, a form of child abuse in itself, another obscenity arose in the blessing given events by some clergy members of The Episcopal Church. I am no longer shocked by the depravity of humankind, thanks to the nature of my professional career, but it is disturbing to witness the mockery of God who is holy and who in His compassion for us made that ultimate sacrifice for the restoration of our relationship with Him.

To change tack a little, so often I have found that words from the Bible are used out of context, or only part of the message is given so that it is purposely distorted to mean something else instead. It is always worth going back to have another look for oneself and, casting aside any agenda, being prepared to open one’s heart to the teaching that those words were meant to provide in the first place.

For instance, it is so fashionable today among some to fire off the admonition not to judge others, and neglect to see that Jesus taught us that we are indeed to make judgements, but that they are to be “righteous judgements” that involve discernment, recognition of sin, based on God’s revelation of Himself and His word. These same people will often adopt a sanctimonious “it is not my place to judge others” stance in defiance of Christ’s instruction as given in John 7:24, making out that those who make such righteous judgements of sin are Pharisaical - that they are self-righteous, hypocritical and pushing a non-God-given doctrine. The problem is that these critics read their Bibles with an agenda, and usually one with a liberal bias heavily loaded towards the social gospel which largely ignores the primary reason for the Incarnation in the first place.

I have heard it said that those who speak those righteous judgements that Christ has told us to make (John 7:24) are lacking compassion. Whereas some may be doing so, I would suggest that the opposite is often the case. Truth may be spoken without love, but love without truth is not love at all. It is merely some sentimental sop condoning permissiveness. A traveller comes to a crossroads and has to decide a destination. He makes an inquiry and is told “I care about you deeply, fellow traveller, and will even carry your bag for you. But I wont tell you which path ends up where”. That is not compassion. His informant doesn’t care a damn!

This is splitting God’s love from His righteousness and holiness. They are not to be split, being two facets of the one God, integrated parts of His character. Indeed they cannot be split. God requires us to be holy as He is Holy. Without His word concerning what is sin we can not know just what dire situation we are in, that mankind’s behaviour has become so debauched and depraved that we are desperately in need of His compassionate act of redemption in Christ. These things cannot be divorced from each other. There is little compassion in ignoring the crimes against God that we sinners are capable of committing, and the consequences of them both here-and-now and eternally. Hush up the nature of sin and its horrific consequences and you steer people away from their need for God.

We hear it so often today - “God is love” - but just what that love really is has been forgotten. It is seen as a description of certain behaviours, the loving thing to do. Indeed it is that, but the real basis of this love - and what is truly meant by “God is love” - is in the Incarnation where Jesus came among us primarily to give Himself as the atonement for our sins, for our redemption. That it was necessary, that our sin made that so, and that He willingly did this great thing is the real love of God. That is the foundation of His compassion - it is His compassion. The rest of what Jesus did emanates from this primary purpose. Lose sight of that, and love becomes just another word, one we hope to see and exercise ourselves, but seldom close to the great act of compassion that took place on Calvary nearly 2,000 years ago.

God is not mocked. He is patient and gives us time and many second chances, but there is an end to his patience and that will be coming. It comes for each one of us when we get to confront Him face-to-face, and at the end of time itself.

The more I think on that terrible Passion of Christ, his scourging and crucifixion, the agony of His burden in the Garden of Gethsemane, the events of the next day, the humilation, the pain, the utterly horrendous torment and trauma… the more I grieve for those who are unregenerate and the great harm that they bring to themselves in their ignorance, defiance and mockery of God. Christians who are most cognizant of what it cost Jesus are not ones who go around with the kind of attitudes that rejoice in the sufferings of others, who want to punish and gloat. That has been said of conservative Christians. It is that cognizance of Christ’s sacrifice that spawns compassion, a truly deep compassion that bears fruit in our evangelism and actions towards others. Anything pharisaical is from a superficial brush with Christian ideals, not from deep in the heart where Christ’s Passion is known, where God’s mercy and forgiveness has been received with genuine humility. Having been forgiven much, one does not dare condemn another. Those players in the Folsom Street Fair do not need my condemnation as they manage to do that most generously for themselves. They need Christ’s compassion, and more desperately than they surely care to know.

1 Corinthians 2: 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment.

Photo credit: Malene Thyssen

Islamophobia is a seriously misused word these days. To quote the words of Mark Alexander who often comments here…

A phobia is a persistent, abnormal, irrational fear of something. People's fears of Islam are neither abnormal nor irrational. It is perfectly normal to fear someone or something which wants to destroy your way of life; and fearing such is not irrational either. Indeed, it would be irrational NOT to fear Islam, given that its stated aim is to take over the world. As for people being persisent in their fears, well that is because Islam is persistent in its objectives of wanting to Islamize the world.

Source

The term is seriously misused in that it is often wrongly defined as hatred towards Muslims. The correct term for that would be something more like Misomuslimism (Greek μίσος miso = hate) for hatred of Muslims, or Misoislamism for hatred of Islam.

The term is further misused in its frequent form of an ad hominem attack on those who, without any hatred towards Muslims, seek to share the truth and reality of Islam - the facts as they are revealed in Islam’s holy book, the Qur’an.
See Islam 101.

This past weekend in New Zealand saw this term frequently misused (together with its related one, Islamophobe, used as a denigrator) through the combined efforts of the “Residents Action Movement” and “Voices of Peace” organizations who brought British MP, George Galloway, here for a public meeting in Auckland. My previous Journal entry introduces and discusses their reactionary agenda.

Reactionary? Yes - absolutely.

Baptist Pastor, Dr Stuart Robinson, the Australian author of the book Mosques and Miracles, drew about 200 people to a conference in Auckland this past weekend aimed at revealing what he says are the true dangers of Islam, and to inform, educate and equip Christians about Islam and how to reach out to Muslims. The two-day conference was organised by the missionary groups Open Doors, Middle East Christian Outreach, Asian Outreach and Interserve, with support from the Vision Network of evangelical churches. Glyn Carpenter of “Vision Network of New Zealand”, who helped promote the conference, said that “the conference is essentially a reminder to Christians of the basic teaching to love others. Certainly the speakers are sharing from their considerable experience of Islam, which includes living in Islamic countries, about the diversity within Islam, and issues to be considered”. (Source)

Dr Robinson believes there is a fundamental difference between Christians and Muslims trying to convert others to their religion, and we need to recognize this difference. He explains that most Westerners do not understand that Islam teaches that peace would prevail in the world only when the Muslim religion predominated. This is what Muslims mean when they describe Islam as a peaceful religion - that peace will reign when there exists universal submission to Allah. Dr Robinson also points out…

Their books teach that they [Muslims] are the best of all people, that they want to rule over the whole world.
One can’t object to that. Christians also are on a mission from God to make disciples, but we make disciples of Jesus, who was quite a different entity from the example of Muhammad.
Muslim theology teaches that war has to be prosecuted against the infidel until the day of judgment when Jesus Christ returns.
Unlike Christianity, which offered salvation simply through faith, Islam teaches that the only sure way to paradise was to die as a martyr for the faith. That becomes an enormous recruitment device for a lot of the suicide bombing that we see.

Source

It is these statements that are considered to be the “rantings” of islamophobia. But what if they are the truth? What if these statements are absolutely factual? In fact, there is irrefutable evidence to support that being the case. The Qur’an reveals these irrefutable facts. The aHadith, and the Sunnah, all reveal these irrefutable facts.

But there is tremendous pressure being brought to bear to have us all believe otherwise. One surely has to question the motives of people who promote such an aggressive denial of these facts. Grant Morgan, the co-editor of a Marxist journal for all grassroots activists, wearing his “Voices of Peace” organization hat, uses the emotionally coloured terms “anti-Muslim extremism, racist bigotry” in his reaction to the planned conference, having already swallowed the politically correct version of Islam rather than listen to the truth spoken by Dr Robinson and others like him. Grant Morgan again, this time wearing his “Residents Action Movement” organization hat, in yet another press release here continues the ridicule and ad hominem assault on “the Aussie Islamophobes” (Dr Robinson, Dr Durie, Dr Shayesteh) whose credentials more than likely far outweigh those of his own and George Galloway combined.

“All good people must unite to defend our Muslim sisters and brothers from the race hate lies of the Aussie Islamophobes and their New Zealand cronies,” writes Grant Morgan.

A few more points to note:

1. Muslims do not regard non-Muslims as their brothers and sisters.

2. There is no evidence at all of any racial hatred. Islam is not even a racial grouping.

3. There is no evidence at all of any hatred towards Muslims. No-one is supporting hatred towards Muslims. The conference aims were specifically related to love, and to reaching out in love to Muslims.

4. Teaching the facts of Islam as per the Qur’an is not hatred. It is simply the teaching of facts. Grant Morgan and George Galloway are the ones providing the emotional ingredients.

5. Teaching what is in the Qur’an is teaching the truth of what is there. No lies are being taught. There is substantial evidence from many other sources to verify this as truth.

6. Islamophobes, cronies - name-calling, the use of ad hominem, is well recognized as the cover-up for a weak argument.

7. Grant Morgan’s red herrings and straw man arguments do not constitute a scholarly rebuttal of the truth espoused by Dr Robinson and his colleagues. Same can be said for George Galloway’s rhetoric. In fact, theirs is just an emotional reaction with no knowledge substance to it at all.

8. Glyn Carpenter of “Vision Network of New Zealand” adds an interesting comment here.
“Contrary to statements made by organisers of the “Voices of Peace” conference, the Mosques and Miracles conference speakers and attendees are anything but Islamophobes. It is ironic and concerning that organisers of a conference called “Voices of Peace” would use terms like “NZ Islamophobes“, “Aussie extremists“, and “far-right Islamophobic idealogues” about this conference.”

9. The website of the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ supposedly promotes knowledge of Islam but in its account of the life of the Prophet, portrays him as a man of peace, and provides no account sowhatever of his (anything but peaceful) activities of the Medina period. Of course, we can resort to the history books for all that, but this is a glaring omission that must reasonably caution the reader to the likelihood of other omissions of equal magnitude.

10. The use of the word “Islamophobia” should ring loud alarm bells and have us looking critically at what exactly is being said, and being ready to remove the emotional content to look strictly at facts, at reality, and for substantiated truth. Teaching what is truthfully revealed in the Qur’an is not “hatred for Muslims” - but having a fear of something with a clearly stated intent of destroying one’s lifestyle, and enforcing a religious belief against one’s will, is most certainly rational and sane, not phobic at all.

And a passing note on the “hatred” of Christians for Muslims…

On the other side of town, ten young men all under 20 years old put into place final arrangements for their ultimate act of faith, living out their love for Allah and hatred of infidels who they felt undermined Islam.

The young men got guns, breadknives, ropes and towels ready for their final act of service to Allah. They knew there would be a lot of blood. They arrived in time for the Bible Study, around 10 o'clock.

They arrived, and apparently the Bible Study began. Reportedly, after Necati read a chapter from the Bible the assault began. The boys tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman's hands and feet to chairs and as they videoed their work on their cellphones, they tortured our brothers for almost three hours*

[Details of the torture:
* Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur's stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated.]

In an act that hit front pages in the largest newspapers in Turkey, Susanne Tilman in a television interview expressed her forgiveness. She did not want revenge, she told reporters. “Oh God, forgive them for they know not what they do,” she said, wholeheartedly agreeing with the words of Christ on Calvary (Luke 23:34).

In a country where blood-for-blood revenge is as normal as breathing, many many reports have come to the attention of the church of how this comment of Susanne Tilman has changed lives. One columnist wrote of her comment, “She said in one sentence what 1000 missionaries in 1000 years could never do.”

Source

For George Galloway and Grant Morgan and a great many others who want to believe that Christians (whom they vilify) are haters of Muslims, Susanne Tilman’s message has yet to reach their ears. She is only one of a great many whose sincere love of Christ means there is no room in her heart to carry hatred for even the torturer and murderer of her husband.
What hatred? Christ teaches us to love our neighbours, love our enemies, and to forgive those who persecute us. What hatred for Muslims? Calling Morgan and Galloway… what planet are you on?

I often resist being called a this or a that, given some label and dumped in with a lot of characteristics that do not define me. Some labels are necessary and unavoidable, but there are others that are very important to resist because they brand their wearers with flawed generalizations and associations that create identity error.

It has been reported in our news that a visiting left-wing British MP, George Galloway, is in the country to speak to the issue of Islamophobia. It is written that Mr Galloway said he flew half way round the world for the weekend to counter talks by “crazed fundamentalists from Australia who are here to whip up hatred against the 45,000 Muslims resident in New Zealand”. One can read this story here. The report lists a number of one and two line statements that sound quite alarming, such that I wonder who is whipping up hatred against whom.

Mr Galloway comes from a country where there is a growing problem from a process of Islamisation, where there are serious threats and acts of Muslim terrorism, and yet he recommends that we follow that country’s political policies to stop “Islamophobia” (which he defines as racism against Muslims) developing here in NZ. I find that something akin to inviting a non-swimmer to teach swimming lessons. It also stands out as a rather bizarre message in the light of another report published today in Germany…

POPE Benedict XVI's private secretary has warned of the ‘Islamisation’ of Europe and demanded that the Continent's Christian roots not to be ignored.

“Attempts to Islamise the west cannot be denied,” Monsignor Georg Gaenswein was quoted as saying in a copy of the weekly Sueddeutsche Magazine published today.


”The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness,” the magazine quoted him as saying.

Gaenswein also defended a speech Pope Benedict gave in Regensburg, Germany, last year linking Islam and violence, saying it was an attempt by the Pontiff to “act against a certain naivety.”


In the interview with the respected German weekly, Gaenswein confirmed that the Pope wrote his own speeches and that the remarks had not been edited.

He said: “I believe that the speech from Regensburg, as it was held, is prophetic.”

Asked if the idea of a serious dialogue with Islam that exists in the real world was naive, given that it was a religion where human rights were trampled under foot, he said: “Attempts to Islamize the West cannot be denied.

“The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness.

Source

Mr Galloway creates a link between Christian fundamentalists and those who promote this supposed Islamophobia, but where in the equation would he dare to place Pope Benedict? After all, that lecture at Regensburg considerably upped the antagonism from the Muslim clerics who objected to Allah being seen as promoting violence. But Pope Benedict, far from preaching Galloway’s “wrongly understood respectfulness” of Islam, was warning against “a certain naivety” that recognizes the reality. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Galloway is denying the facts and stirring up hatred against those (usually Christians) who actually recognize them for what they are - stark reality.

1. Islam is both a political ideology and a religion - some would say a marriage of both, and more correctly the former simply cloaked in the latter. It is not a race, therefore talking in terms of racism only demonstrates a confusion in terms and meanings.

2. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. However, the term is being used to describe a hatred towards Muslims, this creating further confusion due to imprecise meanings.

3. Teaching the truth about Islam is not “Islamophobia” anymore than teaching the truth about Christianity is Christophobia. If that was so, then we should be asking serious questions about Church Sunday School classes as well.

4. The common sense asking and answering of questions, dealing with facts and reality, is not fear-inducing unless there is very good reason that fear arises from such facts. It is not whipping up fear where none needs to exist. Neither is it whipping up hatred towards a race of people or adherents of a particular religion. Those who equate the teaching of facts with such an emotion-laden term are the ones employing psychological means to push an agenda.

5. It is fashionable and trendy to label sane level-headed Christians as “Christian fundamentalists” whether they are or not, vilify them, mock their religious beliefs, and accuse them of deluded and distorted thinking. Apart from this being an ad hominem attack that does not deal with the facts of the issues, it also involves creating straw man arguments into the bargain.

6. In connection with the previous point, it would be more sensible to separate the message from the messenger. It may be that Christians, being those in the firing line for persecution by Islam, have a sharper view of what Islam is about, but the facts need to be considered objectively. The connection with, and vilification of, Christian fundamentalism has prevented an objective appraisal of reality. The baby is being thrown out with the bath water.

The supposed “crazed fundamentalists from Australia who are here to whip up hatred against the 45,000 Muslims resident in New Zealand” include names I recognize as very well-balanced and educated authors who do not hide the truth of Islam.

One is Dr Mark Durie who is vicar of St Mary’s Anglican Church in Caulfield, Melbourne. He is also a senior associate of the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne, with the honorary title of Associate Professor, and was formerly head of the Department of Linguistics and Language Studies. He has written several books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, an Islamic people of Indonesia, and was elected to the Australian Academy of Humanities in 1992 for this research work. He served as a member of the Council of the Academy for a term during the 1990's.

Another is Dr. Daniel Shayesteh who was deeply involved in the Iranian Fundamentalist Revolution (1979) as a leading Muslim political leader and teacher of Islam. In addition to English, he speaks three middle-eastern languages (Farsi, Turkish and Azerbaijani) and is an accomplished poet and classical middle-eastern musician. He is an author and studied in one of the universities in Tehran and later in Turkey and Australia. His doctorate is in international business. He is now a Christian, Director of the Exodus from Darkness ministry, and a National Evangelist for the Christian and Missionary Alliance of Australia.

And another is Australian Baptist pastor, Stuart Robinson, author of “Mosques and Miracles”. Dr Stuart Robinson has been the Senior Pastor of Crossway in Melbourne since 1983. Together with his wife Margaret, they worked for fourteen years in South Asia, where Stuart pioneered church planting among Muslims and thus gained the knowledge and experience which enabled him to author his best selling book.

These people have had considerable experience of Islam and know all of its facets. They are concerned for the future of Western civilization, knowing the Islamic mission of bringing about universal submission to Allah. There is nothing “crazed” about their writing and teaching, but it seems that “whipping up hatred” is the term Mr Galloway and his associates prefer for the teaching of facts that we all need to know. As Christians, they are also committed to the teachings of Christ who would have us all love our neighbour as ourselves. There is no teaching that we must hate Muslims.

Now I have a question to ask. Why is it so important to Mr Galloway to come all the way around the world to tell us this message, or to his associates who have brought him out here? Why must we not hear the truth about Islam? Why must the facts be messed up with a lot of ad hominem attacks on Christians and straw man arguments? No one is hating the peace-loving Muslims living in NZ, those getting on with their lives and not causing anyone any upset. But should we not be aware of the dangers that some may bring to our shores, and if numbers increase as they have done so in Britain and Europe, then that we may be subject to similar concerns for ourselves?

A friend of mine recently returned from a quick trip to London and told me how, as she was waiting in the queue at Heathrow to board her flight back home, there were about a dozen young Muslim men lining up as well. Being a friendly person, she spoke to them but got back some awkward looks. One of their number came up to her and, in halting English, explained that none of the group spoke any English except for himself. During the flight they spent most of their time reading from their Qur’ans, and later in the flight the young men were having a problem filling out their immigration cards. The one who could speak a little English approached my friend for assistance. It transpired that the whole group were coming for 3 years. They were all going to attend NZ universities - 3 to Otago, 3 to Canterbury, 3 to Victoria, and 3 to Auckland. But wait… how could they study at a NZ university if they could not speak, read or write the language? Oh my! It really does make one wonder for what exactly 12 young Muslim men are coming all this way here to New Zealand.

I think we should ask common sense questions, and we should be given truthful answers that match all the facts. It is only common sense after all.

Yesterday in New Zealand an international inter-faith forum was opened, attended by 165 religious and cultural leaders from 15 countries. The forum was sponsored by the New Zealand, Australian, Indonesian and Philippines governments as a response to the 2002 Bali bombings, the aim being to prevent religious-inspired terrorism by building links between various faiths in what is potentially the world’s most volatile region. In a sign of the importance they are afforded by member states, the opening was attended by NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark, the NZ Foreign Affairs Minister, Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and the Australian Foreign Minister. New Zealand has a Statement on Religious Diversity, prepared by the Victoria University Religious Studies Programme, and is the subject of a national process of public consultation coordinated by the Human Rights Commission. It was endorsed by the National Interfaith Forum in Hamilton in February 2007 as a basis for ongoing public discussion. The statement reads as follows:

1. The State and Religion
The State seeks to treat all faith communities and those who profess no religion equally before the law. New Zealand has no official or established religion.

2. The Right to Religion
New Zealand upholds the right to freedom of religion and belief and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religious or other belief.

3. The Right to Safety
Faith communities and their members have a right to safety and security.

4. The Right of Freedom of Expression
The right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media are vital for democracy but should be exercised with responsibility.

5. Recognition and Accommodation
Reasonable steps should be taken in educational and work environments and in the delivery of public services to recognise and accommodate diverse religious beliefs and practices.

6. Education
Schools should teach an understanding of different religious and spiritual traditions in a manner that reflects the diversity of their national and local community.

7. Religious Differences
Debate and disagreement about religious beliefs will occur but must be exercised within the rule of law and without resort to violence.

8. Cooperation and understanding
Government and faith communities have a responsibility to build and maintain positive relationships with each other, and to promote mutual respect and understanding.

Background to this statement is the understanding that New Zealand is a country of many faiths with a significant minority who profess no religion. Increasing religious diversity is a significant feature of public life. At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Governor Hobson affirmed, in response to a question from Catholic Bishop Pompallier, “the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom shall alike be protected”. Christianity has played and continues to play a formative role in the development of New Zealand in terms of the nation’s identity, culture, beliefs, institutions and values.

On the face of it, these eight points that comprise the statement do look fair and reasonable. In our secular society every person receives equal protection under the law - protection from each other when the “right” to freedom of expression and practice of religious beliefs are under threat. The virtue of equality in law is upheld, but with it the less virtuous levelling of our national identity to whatever ingredients just happen to be in the mixing pot.

Less virtuous? The addition of a very small amount of salt may be excessive in flavouring the soup, and so too may the original ingredients forming our nation’s identity, culture, beliefs, institutions and values be overwhelmed by the influence of a small but forceful component without certain protections for those original ingredients. Just as has happened in the United Kingdom with the over-reaching impact of Islam from a population percentage still in single digits (about 3%) and in Europe from a greater percentage range, so may our Judeo-Christian heritage also require extra protection if we are not to lose it’s influence in several decades from now. Muslim youth in Sweden are wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words based on socio-demographical predictions: “2030 and we take over”.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

At the opening of this inter-faith forum yesterday were 2,000 protesters led by “Bishop” Brian Tamaki of the Destiny Church, a traditionally Bible-based evangelical Christian church that many would describe as fundamentalist. The protest was against the statement of religious diversity which says the country has no “established or official religion”. Bishop Tamaki branded it “treason” for failing to properly recognise New Zealand’s Christian past, and delivered his own statement which demanded the Government formally recognise New Zealand as a Christian nation.

“Our government intends on presenting to primarily what are Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist countries that New Zealand has no established religion. I contend and say that we do have an established religion, it’s Christianity and I think … every New Zealander should be involved in making that officially recognised.” ~ Bishop Brian Tamaki, Destiny Church.

In response, our Prime Minister defended the Statement on Religious Diversity by saying that NZ has never had a state religion. Some further debate on this issue has been reported here. In the 2006 Census, those professing a Christian faith dropped from 60.8% of the population in 2001 to 51.2%, but were still 10 times as numerous as all other religions combined (5.1%). Those professing no religion rose from 29.6% to 32.2%, and 13.3% refused to answer the question.

How does one protect our Judeo-Christian heritage while receiving immigrants from different cultures and religions? I personally would like to see formal recognition of our Christian heritage, and an amendment of that first point which so upsets Brian Tamaki and others. After all, we do indeed have an established religion, that being Christianity - historically and currently. Our national anthem is God Defend New Zealand. It is not Allah, Buddha, or Krishna (etc) Defend New Zealand. In teaching about different faiths, I would like Christianity favoured over the teaching of other religions in schools - and taught realistically, such as within a Biblical Christian world view that explores some of the essential apologia for its tenets of faith, not just a random assortment of Bible stories for children. And the cessation of the current politically correct effort to eradicate Christian influence and practice where that is taking place, such as the over-sensitivity to the meaningful (as opposed to commercial) celebration of Christian festivals in case a practitioner of a different faith might possibly feel offended. The practice of other religions needs be kept reasonable in regard to the existing culture, which doesn’t mean hiding one’s face inside a burqua when that engenders suspicion and fosters segregation rather than assimilation.

Puritan Lad, in his Covenant Theology blog, has posted an entry entitled “Christianity and Immigration” in which he writes that, whereas “the Bible commands us to love the immigrant, it also commands the immigrant to assimilate into a Christian society that welcomes him.” He references the following Scripture:

“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:21-24)

“You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God.”
(Leviticus 24:22)

“And if a stranger sojourns among you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its rule, so shall he do. You shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native.”
(Numbers 9:14)

This is about assimilation, and assimilation into a country with a Judeo-Christian heritage upon which our culture and national identity is based. Our society may be largely secular due to the separation of state from religion, but we are not religion-free and there should be no covert invitation for any other to make the soup too salty to the taste. Yes, of course I am biased towards Christianity. The first of the Ten Commandments just happens to be: “You shall have no other gods before me.”

One of C.S. Lewis’s most popular books, and the one he said was the hardest to write, is The Screwtape Letters. (See my entry of 2 years ago).

They are a collection of letters written by a senior devil, Screwtape, to his nephew and apprentice, Wormwood, which cover an interesting curriculum designed to mentor Wormwood in meeting the objective of shipwrecking humans on the rocks of evil and eternal damnation.

I am not sure if The Screwtape Letters are quite as popular today as they were when they were written back in 1941 since the “sophistication” of this post-Christian age scorns the idea of personified evil in the form of Satan, the Prince of Darkness, Father of Lies, who masquerades as an Angel of Light. However, Lewis writes masterfully of the wiles of the devil and his subtle influence on ourselves to claim us as his unwitting followers on a path in the opposite direction of Heaven.

One of the most primary methods outlined is that of convincing us of Satan’s non-existence. If we can be made to believe that he does not exist, then he can move more stealthily about as invisible, nicely hidden from our modern secular cognizant selves by our own spiritual blindness. How much easier it is for him to do his dirty work when nobody believes he is there! What a stroke of genius!

It would seem that the Prince of Darkness could well be winning the battle for people’s souls. One of the functions of The Barna Group is to provide primary research regarding the religious or spiritual views currently held by people in America, and I am using this very large population as generally representative of our western civilization. In a recent study directed by David Kinnaman, it was found that…

Most Americans do not have strong and clear beliefs, largely because they do not possess a coherent biblical worldview. That is, they lack a consistent and holistic understanding of their faith. Millions of Americans say they are personally committed to Jesus Christ, but they believe he sinned while on earth. Many believers claim to trust what the Bible teaches, but they reject the notion of a real spiritual adversary or they feel that faith-sharing activities are optional. Millions feel personally committed to God, but they are renegotiating the definition of that deity.

As regards the existence of Satan…

~ In 2006, more than half of adults (55%) say that the devil, or Satan, is not a living being but is a symbol of evil.
~ In 2006, 45% of born again Christians deny Satan’s existence.
~ Slightly more than two-thirds of Catholics (68%) say the devil is non-existent and only a symbol of evil. (2006).

In Scripture, Satan first appears as the snake who successfully tempts Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit (OK, who thought it was an apple that she ate, and why?) but that is one representation of many. Satan is said to be a non-corporal spiritual entity, originally an angel of some stature who lead a rebellion against God. So in talking about him, in whatever way at all, he originates from the spiritual realm, that which mainstream Christian belief acknowledges co-exists with our physical reality.

The content of Judah’s Journal is copyright. If you are NOT reading this on Judah’s Journal, then it has been copied from there and is re-published illegally - in other words, stolen. Those who would do that are common thieves and lack moral integrity. Judah’s Journal

Changing tack just a little, it strikes me as amazing that millions of Americans say they are personally committed to Jesus Christ, but also say they believe He sinned while on earth. To whom then are they committed? It cannot be the Jesus of the Bible because there is no doubt in Scripture that Jesus Christ, the One who was crucified on the cross as our Redeemer, is indeed sinless. To say that He sinned is to deny that God is holy and righteous, and it flies right in the face of true Biblical Christian belief. A Jesus who sinned while on earth is simply a figment of the imagination; a Jesus that anyone can make up and manipulate anyway one likes. And quite sadly, too many folk do go around with a made-up version of Jesus in their heads, believing in some non-Biblical mythical person instead of the real One who is the Second Person of the triune Christian Godhead.

If these so-called Christians can believe in that made-up Jesus instead of the real One, then it is no wonder that they can believe the Father of Lies who sets out to convince them that he doesn’t really exist.

Our policy, for the moment, is to conceal ourselves. Of course this has not always been so. When the humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism and we make no magicians. On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and sceptics…

…I do not think you will have much difficulty in keeping the patient in the dark. The fact that “devils” are predominantly comic figures in modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that (it is an old textbook method of confusing them) he therefore cannot believe in you.

~ C.S. Lewis, the words of Screwtape in a letter to Wormwood.

Yes, the straw man argument! Create a ridiculous image and notion of Satan or devils and such, and then demolish that ridiculous image and notion - claiming that you have just demolished the real thing. C.S. Lewis was really on to something when he penned his popular book, but how sad that the truth embedded therein is being so disregarded these days. The spiritual realm is real, but so many will not believe that until they leave their mortal bodies behind. For them, Satan will so likely have cause to celebrate.

POSTSCRIPT: Check this out.

The Apostle Paul cautioned the Thessalonians to “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil”. (1Thessalonians 5:21-22)

We are told that “The Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. (Acts 17:11)

A good Christian friend once told me that I could believe anything I like about Jesus, but unless it was true of the Jesus who is written about in the Bible, then I wasn’t dealing with the real Jesus who is the Son of God. Likewise, I can choose to believe anything I like about God but it will be utterly immaterial if it isn’t the actual truth about Him.

So what is Truth?

There are some things that Truth is not. It is not “that which coheres”, or “what works” (pragmatism), or “that which was intended”, or “what is comprehensive” or “what is existentially relevant” or “what feels good/natural” (subjectivism). There are rational and substantive arguments that hold their ground against all rebuttals to that which I have just written.

Instead, Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Factual truth is that which corresponds to the facts. This nature of truth is crucial to the Christian faith.

Traditional conservative Christianity is predicated on the position that truth is absolute. It’s source is the holy and righteous character of God.

However, a commonly found premise of current thought is that truth is relative - that something may be true for one person but not for all people. Or that it may be true at one time but not at another. According to the absolutist view, what is true for one person is true for all persons, times and places. Only the correspondence criterion - that truth corresponds to reality - provides the sole adequate definition of the nature of truth (the others describe tests for truth, perhaps, but not an explanation of the nature of truth).

This understanding of the nature of truth is fundamental to understanding our knowledge of God. I can believe anything I like about God, but unless I test my beliefs against what is written about Him in Scripture, then I am not verifying them in correspondence to the revealed truth about Him. If what I am believing is inconsistent with the revealed truth about God, then my claim is most certainly dubious.

The Church of England has established a listening process - that we must listen to the experiences of gay people, and keep listening, and listening, and listening. While I have no problem at all with listening to folk, I get the feeling that this is a stalling process as well. It is a way of saying “well, maybe…” instead of pronouncing the truth: “God said NO”. All the while that folk are busy sensitively listening, the big powerful political machine of the gay lobby plunders on. And although I am now heartily sick of the big homosexuality issue, it is the issue constantly thrust in our faces by the political activists (supported by the human rights people) who want Christianity to change God’s rules and declare them no longer sinners.

VIGNETTE:
A priest of the Church of England has told how he had, for many years, assumed a traditional conservative Christian world view. Then he came across two lesbians living together in a loving sexual relationship. They were both Christians and upset that their lifestyle, which they believed to be hugely loving, was condemned by the conservative Christians who claimed Scripture taught it was sinful. As he described the caring nature of their relationship I could see how one could compare it with many other relationships where far less attention and concern for each other was evident, and have difficulty in claiming that it was not as caring and healing as the two involved insisted it was. As Christians they felt it was natural, and that God condoned their relationship, and had blessed them with a fruitful ministry to others. There were parts of their relationship that could be said to match that of any two people who cared greatly for each other - sisters perhaps, or brothers, or best friends of either gender - but this was also a sexual relationship, and their love spilled over into sexual expression and gratification. The question posed was… at what point was their relationship sinful, if it was sinful at all?

One’s answer depends on the extent to which one adopts culturally influenced liberal leanings in understanding the truth regarding God’s moral law, or whether one adheres to the traditional conservative position instead. Those who take a plain reading of Scripture (the conservative position) will say that, when there is sexual involvement outside marriage, the relationship is sinful without any doubt. That applies to heterosexuality just as much as homosexuality. There is considerable apologia for this position, and a very good outline of it in relationship to homosexuality can be found in two papers, this one here and the other here, which I encourage all to read before going any further in the exploration of this vignette.

What I think has happened is this. In a “listening” or counselling role one of the absolutely essential things required of the listener or counselor is to remain objective. The professional counselor will certainly develop empathy and relate to the other on a number of levels, aware of feelings evoked, aware of sensitivities within oneself, unresolved personal issues, new thoughts and new understandings, the needs of the other, and appropriate helpful responses. All this is a normal part of the process and important to occur for a good helping relationship to develop. However, the over-riding important thing that must also occur is that the listener or counselor does not lose objectivity. For this reason, professional counselors and therapists will have clinical supervision to assist them to remain objective. In the case of a Christian counselor, the objectivity is centred in the truth of what is found in Scripture. The danger of listening is that of mistaking just what one is listening to - the voice of God, or the voice of something else. No matter what the belief is about God, unless it is verified by what has already been revealed about Him - that He has revealed about Himself and His will for us - then the belief cannot stand in contention as truth. Christianity is not based on relative truth, as already mentioned. No amount of twisting and distorting what is written in Scripture will change God’s holy character, the basis of His moral law and absolute truth. And the blessing that these people believe God has bestowed upon them can be no more than His “common grace” which He bestows on all of us, His generous love regardless of our sinful states. He is so patient with us, not wishing to lose any of us, but waits for our repentance and denial of self to truly become closer likenesses to Christ.

I believe this priest lost objectivity. He was convinced by a tale loaded with genuine distress, and relinquishing his hold on the truth embodied in the holy character of God and revealed by Him, was pulled over to the side of the other. I know he does not agree with me. We are at loggerheads. The plain reading of Scripture, and the apologia for my position as described in the paper linked to above, verifies the truth of this verdict. He is hard pressed to justify his position except by application of cultural liberal ideas about truth.

Mark Alexander, in his paper, addresses the Scriptural issues as follows…

Homosexual advocates make the principal argument that Scripture is ambiguous about sexual immorality. However, both the Old and New Testaments are abundantly clear on their condemnation of homosexual behavior.

In every authentic translation of the Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures, homosexual acts are, indeed, explicitly condemned. However, as some have dubiously suggested that our U.S. Constitution is an elastic “living document,” likewise they suggest that Scripture is malleable and thus subject to the same practice of revisionist interpretation.

Homosexual advocates argue that citing Scripture’s condemnation of sin is isogetical (proof-texting) rather than exegetical. However, this essay does not turn to God’s word with the objective of finding verse that comports to a certain theological, social or political agenda, it returns to Scripture as the exegetical context for the Christian faith.

So convoluted has the debate become in some Western Christian denominations that a few have already approved the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Some have also come perilously close to recognizing homosexual “marriage,” resulting in intra-denominational schisms.

As regards the two positions being at loggerheads, The Very Rev. Dr Peter Moore presents this impasse so well, and while there is no rapprochement in sight, his advice is as follows:

As Christians we must approach the issue of homosexuality not with the secular criteria of rights, but with the Christian value of love. Of course we accept basic civil rights for homosexuals, as we do for all people. But that does not mean that they have a right in the Christian community to be accepted as they wish, despite their behavior. We do not define who we are to one another, or to God. God defines us, and we find our identity in God’s definition of us.
. . . . .
What we find is that true love forbids us to bless homosexual relationships. The church can never bless what God has not blessed. Rather our task is much more difficult and much more costly. We must labor alongside those with unruly emotions, who believe that sexual restraint and healing are impossible, and who put themselves and others at grave risk. We seek to do this with all the sensitivity of Our Lord himself; and we seek to do this by demonstrating, that it really is possible to live a new life in Christ.

For some homosexuals that will mean openness to healing and even marriage. For many others it will mean celibacy, either short term or long term. Those of us who desire to fulfill the Great Commandment will be active in trying to persuade our brothers and sisters, however much they may not want to be told it, that this is the way of real love, and true liberation.

And just in passing, there is another blog post from August that has relevance to what is written here: Sorry Elton

{clip} … This church movement, by denying the sins of sexual immorality, have closed the doors of many souls. They have removed the need to repent of sexual immorality by giving it recognition and status in the church.

Yes, the church is for sinners, but its mission is to teach about God’s love, and that what removes us from that love, namely sin. And that the only way we can be reconciled with that love is to repent, and turn away from our sin. Sin and the Holy Spirit cannot co-exist. Sin is the manifestation of evil and darkness, while the Holy Spirirt is the manifestation of love and light. It is one or the other. It is our sinful desire versus God’s desire.

And another relevant post on the blog of another online Christian friend: Of Apes and Men.

Those who take this plain reading of Scripture are most likely these days to be ridiculed and called all kinds of unpleasant names. One of those names will likely be “homophobe” which couldn’t be further from the truth. It is not loving (agape) to withhold the truth. If one sees from the river bank that a group of friends on a raft, having a great time, are unknowingly heading straight for extremely dangerous rapids where they will come to grief, then does one just smile and wave and withhold the truth - or issue a warning in the hope of averting disaster? Is it to be a spoil-sport, upsetting their fun, and hateful of them to point out the truth?

As already stated, in so many ways I am sick of this subject - but it is the one constantly thrown at us by the political activists who insist Christians remove the blot of sin from the homosexual’s copybook - as though we are God and can do that! But there are other sins that, whilst not subject to political agitation, are also in need of addressing. Hands up those who over-ate today, who told a lie or did something dishonest, who were lazy and selfish and rude and - especially for Christians - stole himself or herself back from God! We were bought for a price and no longer own ourselves, remember? And we are all sinners. Not one of us righteous. But the fact is, I don’t hear the Church telling us we are to remove gluttony and theft from God’s moral law and declassify it as sin. Or if it is saying no repentance is required, then it is hard pressed to claim to be Christian at all. The Gospel message most certainly includes repentance from sin. I’m afraid that is the difference, that these sexual sins are being regarded as holy, and that is why this subject keeps coming up - over and over again.

But the good news…

Modern liberal theology holds that the message of the Bible has to be adapted, more or less, to the requirements of a secular world. This process of debasing Christianity leads, in the long run, to a complete perversion and falsification of the essence of Christianity. The real Gospel becomes replaced by a social gospel. The denial of self becomes the satiation of self. Happiness is made out to be ours by right, to be sought; a must to be provided. We are, after all, deserving little gods made in the image of the Creator God. And when we do wrong, we are “only human after all” which is an excuse, a salve to deaden the conscience, to expunge the guilt because who can blame us, who can throw the first stone, who can be so hard-hearted not to understand and know it was all to do with how we were raised and all that?

Yes, it does have something to do with how we were raised… if we were raised on the social gospel instead of the Gospel of Christ.

It’s quite funny when you read something you wrote quite a while ago and had practically forgotten that you had ever written it. I came across one of such things on the newly made-over website of a friend. It was quite properly there, because that is where it was first published - and I think it is somewhere near the beginning of Judah’s Journal as well, back in the very early days stuff. I daren’t go looking - too many cobwebs! But it is kind of “On Topic” with several other blog entries of two online friends of mine, so here are the links:

1. What I wrote:
The Proof of the Pudding…

…comes from eating your vegies.

The church that I once attended had a hugely charismatic Vicar who drew a full congregation every Sunday evening. He was a big-hearted seeming man with a real gift for oratory, a poetic way with words, and penchant for telling anecdotes as parables. We loved to settle down and listen as his words flowed over us, stirring all kinds of feelings in our hearts and souls. I still remember a number of these tragic-romantic stories although I'm not exactly sure I can say what the rest of the message was about. It was excellent “feel good” stuff, and we left the church each Sunday evening with the week's stress washed from our faces, vaccinated against the Mondayitis that had threatened to cloud over in another few hours. It was like eating dessert without having to deal with one's vegetables first.
read more

2. What Puritan Lad wrote:
John the Baptist: Seeker Sensitive Version

3. What Puritan Lad wrote before that:
The Babbling Tower of Emotional Health

4. What August wrote too:
Back to the Gospel

Postscript ~

5. And what Puritan Lad has written since:
The Idol of Self-Esteem

An online group member recently told how a work colleague, the father of a young man who had got himself into big trouble, had become so desperate about his son that, unable to cope any more, he had ended his own life. It was said by another how hard that was to understand, and yet another added that hopefully the mother of the young man would reappear on the scene (she and the father were estranged) to be there for her son instead.

I know no more of the circumstances, but perhaps I can make a stab at some of the possible reasons for the father’s despair and desperation. It seems that he had hung in there with his son even although the mother had given up and moved out. Perhaps the marriage had come apart due to family damage wrought by the son’s behaviours - that would not be an uncommon event, and often a circular process feeding negatively on itself. Coping as a solo parent is never easy, but it would be “six of one, half a dozen of the other” when it came to dealing with the difficult teen or young adult. On one hand, there is no conflict between parents over how situations should best be managed, but on the other hand, there is no mutual support either. But whatever was going on, the chances are that the involved parent was experiencing a tremendous helping of shame and guilt possibly leading to isolation, plus anger (nay, rage!) with grief and depression leading to his final act of escape - the ultimate self punishment, and punishment of others close and more remote.

When kids go wrong, society wags the finger and points it at the parents. “Your kids are what you deserve!” says the self-righteous finger of blame. “You didn’t do your job as you should!” echoes more pointing fingers. Yes, parents should have done it this way, and that way, and every other way they didn’t do it - despite their best efforts, despite how much they cared, despite how hard they tried. The fingers of blame point directly from the hand holding the crystal ball, the hand with all the