Crossing Cook Strait on the Aratere is not my most preferred way to spend an afternoon. However, the Marlborough Sounds do offer picturesque scenery for tourists, and the Strait itself can bring added excitement those days when strong cross currents and high winds combine to make it one of the roughest stretches of water in the world.

Just before we embarked I grabbed a book from the local secondhand shop, and at only $2 per hour, it made the journey much sweeter for me. Another traveller peered to see the title of what I was reading… Shame, by Jasvinder Sanghera. It was an interesting, if harrowing, autobiography and given that sailing conditions were no greater than “moderate”, the 290 pages were able to fill those three hours perfectly. Thank goodness for books.

In her book Jas recounted her heart-rending true story of oppression, escape from forced arranged marriage, resultant family rejection, and a harrowing struggle against a punitive code of honour. Born in Derby (England) of Asian immigrant parents, she witnessed the torment and abuse endured by her older sisters in such marriages, and ran away from home as a young teenager when it became her turn to follow suit.

But the story became one of triumph over adversity when Jas, after two broken marriages, two small children, pregnant with another, fulfilled her dream to earn a degree at university and co-founded a community-based project to support others like herself, women affected by domestic violence and honour-based crimes. (Jas has since written a subsequent book, Daughters of Shame, published January 2009, which continues her advocacy campaign against forced marriages and abuse of Indian and Pakistani women).

One of the characteristics of shame, as a human emotion, is that it is experienced when the cloak of secrecy is removed and exposure results. To avoid shame we seek to hide those things of which we are ashamed. But the interesting thing Jas experienced was the relief from unburdening herself to a non-judgmental empathic listener, one who was able to listen with true compassion. Removing the cloak of secrecy cut straight through the crushing humiliation of shame and brought her out of its darkness into an emancipation from its destruction. She learnt that, not only do women need a refuge, but to talk and share their horrifying experiences. Then the shame will be undone, revealed as crimes perpetuated by others rather than by themselves. There was a pressing need for the kind of acceptance that encouraged this outpouring, supporting the women culturally while yet undoing the damage of their enculturation. It seemed almost a contradiction, supplying a cultural milieu to counteract a cultural crime. But there are most definitely times when such a non-judgmental environment is absolutely essential.

On arrival home from my Cook Strait reading adventure, I discovered a copy of our most recent community newsletter stuffed in the mailbox. Flicking through the brief news items I found an advertisement for a new kind of service at the local Uniting Church. There was an invitation to come and “worship with a difference” by joining with others for a relaxed time of talking about all sorts of topics, listening to the veiwpoints of others, and finding a variety of things to think about. That is worship?

This is certainly an age of relativism. The Asian women who need to recover from culturally inflicted suffering require a culturally appropriate environment (empathic, accepting, supportive) in which they are enabled to do so, but I personally don’t see Christian church worship as an activity which lends itself quite to a communal sharing of viewpoints. If that is worship, I’m left wondering just who and what was to be worshipped.

Hubby and I had been pouring over computer specs all day and we needed an airing, a visit to a local café for our customary “two long blacks”. One each, that is.

They were duly delivered along with little slips of paper bearing conversation-provoking messages. Mine read “Never believe in absolutes”. No reason was given why not, but the interesting thing was the contradictory nature of the message, itself being an absolute. The unstated corollary would have to be “including this one!”

“That’s the trouble with the world today,” volunteered Hubby. “People don’t want to believe in absolutes. It’s all relative even when it is not.” A silver-coloured car went past just outside the window. “That car is painted a silver colour,” he said. “I don’t care who says it is some different colour. It isn’t. It is a silver colour.”

Well, I certainly have no argument with that. There are absolutes, whether we believe that or not. Try jumping off a building in the belief that gravity is only relative and it wont have any effect on one’s fall. One way to sort out believers from non-believers! The absolutes don’t jump; the relatives end up a mess on the ground.

I remember a psychology lecture on neuro-linguistic programming - NLP. We were taught that “the map is not the world” and that our perception was merely a map. The world was reality, our map not necessarily so. We all go around with maps, and they don’t necessarily read the same. One could have a mountain where another has a lake. The reader of each map will have a different response to that part of the world.

Now that makes sense to me when I find my perception differs from that of others. We all react, at least in part, to our various perceptions of reality. If someone told you, in a language you did not comprehend, that all your family back home had died in a house fire… well, you’d be none the wiser. You had not perceived the meaning of their message. Your existing map does not represent that part of the world. But should that be said in the language you do understand… what a different reaction that could provoke! Suddenly your map corresponds more closely to the reality of that part of the world.

I guess the whole essence of sanity is having one’s map correspond closely to the world. What is real, right, true… they need to match existing reality. Where that does not happen, we may be deceived, in denial, deluded, or dead. And so I will go for absolutes. I need to match my map closely to the world or I’ll confuse the features of the landscape and most likely lose my way… if I had any idea where I was heading in the first place. A lake is not a mountain, and it wont stop being a lake just because I perceive it as something else. A silver-coloured car is silver-coloured, no matter who says it is otherwise.

When I am told it is right to do something because everybody else does it, or because I can get away with it without being caught… no, that is not the definition of “right”. What is right has to match with something that remains consistent in all circumstances regardless of how others behave, or who might be around to catch me out. What is right, real, true… all of those things have to correspond with their immutable source. If not, then we say goodbye to absolutes and those things are relative to whatever changing standard we choose. Nope, not for me. Absolutely!

Hmm, not a bad cup of coffee. Now back to those computer specs…

Email Judah

There is a connection, but these days it is often forgotten, not known, or deliberately ignored. The secularization of much of Christianity, from the promotion of a social gospel (without Gospel) to consumerism (with Santa) at Christmas, includes the concentration on chocolate to mark the celebration of Easter.

In the newspaper was a list of what kinds of shops may legally trade on Easter Sunday, and just what they may sell. The rest will be breaking the law. Whatever guides that decision is somewhat incomprehensible, and frankly, quite silly. I may bet on the horses at the TAB, but I can’t make a sandwich to sell to another. So I can play but not work, make money through recreation, but not through a service to others (except in tourist “hot spots”). Sandwiches made prior to the day will pass, but not ones made freshly on the day. I sympathise with those who criticise the senselessness of such a law, but if they don’t want any law about Easter, then perhaps they should not claim the holiday (Holy Day) - nor increased pay rates for working it - either. Oh, but it is a good excuse for some kind of celebration, even forgetting the Christian significance, or rendering it innocuous by converting to chocolate egg eating instead.

For a nation of just 4½ million people, we in New Zealand manage to consume $(NZ)31,000,000 of chocolate at Easter ($7 each, including babies of course) and chomped through a whole $(NZ)383,000,000 worth in total last year. Many of us will eat far more than others as someone like me who, as a diabetic, has learnt to enjoy Easter without needing to eat chocolate which would do me no good… so someone else is eating my share! One of the biggest eggs on sale this year weighs 1 Kg and provides 22,400 kilojoules (5,350 nutritional calories) of energy - about 2½ times the daily energy requirement for one person. It would take over a day of walking, or 13½ hours of cycling, or 10 hours of jogging, or 7½ hours of swimming, to work it all off. Not for me… I’m too lazy for that! …or would, more likely, end up in hospital.

Now, the neglected connection… and of course, it has to do with new life.

Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?
(My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?)

Some of those standing at the foot of the cross where Jesus was nailed thought he was calling out to the prophet, Elijah. One of them offered him a sponge soaked in sour wine. Others suggested they wait to see if Elijah would come to save him. But again Jesus called out… and then he died.

Then we are told that the earth shook, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the most significant event of all… the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, revealing the Holy of Holies.

The curtain between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (where no one was allowed to enter except the high priest on only one day of the year) was an elaborately woven fabric of 72 twisted plaits of 24 threads each. It was 60 ft high and 30 ft wide. The significance of this tearing apart was that, on the death of Jesus, there was no longer a separation between God and His people. Jesus had borne the powerful wrath of God for our sins, and fully experienced the hellish abandonment of God. The price was paid, the debt discharged, the way made clear for our legal righteousness before God.

This was no ordinary man, the soldiers and people at the foot of the cross conceded. The centurion, we are told, was filled with awe and said “Truly this was the Son of God!”

These are eye witness accounts. Not just one eye witness, but many.

But what happened on the third day - Sunday - was also remarkable. Despite Roman guards, a special seal, and a 2-ton rock obstructing the entrance, the confirmed dead, thoroughly embalmed (100 pounds of ointment and spices!) and well wrapped body of Jesus emerged alive from the tomb. Again, many eye witness accounts of his solid appearance. No wraith or spirit. He offered himself to be touched, and he ate a piece of fish to prove he was real. Even those who had been hostile towards him, and disbelieving, were convinced in spite of themselves.

So what am I to make of this?

I have a choice - either I can believe these accounts, or disbelieve them. If I disbelieve them, I have some serious problems to resolve. How otherwise to explain these accounts? There have been many attempts, but none of them stand up to rigorous reasonable, logical and forensic scrutiny. Indeed, the whole account, starting with my knowledge of myself and an examination of the evidences provided, has a certain coherence and credibility in relation to each other. For instance, I know I am far from perfect. I don’t know what I can do to rid myself of objective guilt - the reality that I frequently betray my conscience and break laws of all kinds - other than accepting the solution offered by the Jesus of Holy Scripture.

Jesus requires a personal commitment to Him if I am to accept His offer of legal righteousness before God. He bore my sins, and in exchange, I am imputed with His righteousness in the eyes of God. He makes all things new, and gives me a new life. This must involve a relationship. It is not a mere assent to the truth of these things, but an involvement with Him in the most intimate and personal of ways. He commands obedience - an obedience to His commandments to love God with all my heart, mind, body and soul. And in turn, to love my neighbour as myself. I am to love with Godly love, the unselfish and humble giving of myself to Him and to others. This is a very tall order, but it is a response to the great love He showed in giving Himself for me (and you) in this way. And that is just the beginning of the story… there is far more yet to come.

Easter Sunday. The celebration of the Resurrection of Christ. Many sceptics have become Christians while attempting to refute the Resurrection. To present all the evidences here would take too many words. The significance and explanations surrounding them have been debated strenuously, and the proof evidence presented continues to point to the only reasonable conclusion, namely, that Christ rose bodily from death.

To follow these evidences and the arguments every way concerning them, click on the following links. Go on, I dare you! Sceptics and scoffers beware. If you are prepared to give honest consideration to what you read here, prepare for (at very least) a seed of doubt to enter your disbelief.

Evidence for the Resurrection by Josh McDowell
Evidence for the resurrection of Christ by Peter Kreeft
Evidences for the Resurrection by J. Hampton Keathley III, M.Th.
Evidence for the Resurrection from “Contend for the Faith“, an Apologetics and Theology Resource.

A comment from Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Boston College:

The historical evidence is massive enough to convince the open-minded inquirer. By analogy with any other historical event, the resurrection has eminently credible evidence behind it. To disbelieve it, you must deliberately make an exception to the rules you use everywhere else in history. Now why would someone want to do that?

Ask yourself that question if you dare, and take an honest look into your heart before you answer.

What best to do with the Easter Bunny… and who thought babies didn’t eat chocolate?

Email Judah

The other day somebody asked me my name. I answered with the one that most people call me. “Interesting,” my enquirer said, “did you realize that St Jude is the patron saint of hopeless and desperate cases and lost causes?” Well, I hadn’t prefixed myself with any such title, but I did wonder where the conversation might be going to lead.

Jude is another form of the Hebrew name Judah, and just happens to be my own name as well. There is a Jude who was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, someone considered to be the brother of James, and also the brother of Jesus. There is a little disagreement among scholars over the exact kinship relationships, but this Jude is believed to have written the epistle which is included in the New Testament. He describes himself as a servant of Jesus Christ, and writes to “those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ”. It is a short little letter, but it carries a very important message - a serious warning.

Jude warns of the false teachers who have infiltrated the early church and are trying to lure believers away from the truth, telling them that God’s forgiveness allows them to live immoral lives. These godless people were distorting the established truth, that repentance was required for forgiveness, and repentance meant turning one’s back on the sin and steering well clear of it in future. These false teachers were persuading folk that God’s grace of forgiveness meant they were free to continue sinning, that they had been granted a licence to disregard God’s moral laws and carry on just as before.

No way! says Jude. This is definitely not so, and to continue living in deliberate and unrepentant sin is a rejection and repudiation of God’s grace. He reminds folk of Sodom and Gomorrah, the twin cities obsessed with sexual immorality and perversion, which then were seared off the face of the planet in a spectacular fireball.

Reading this epistle I was struck by the similarity of the situation in this current age. Jude could just as well be writing to the church of today. In fact, he is - in the sense that holy scripture is the written word of God meant for all human beings, back then, here now, in between, and as far as the future extends. Back in those days it was both the gnostic heresy, and profoundly libertine (morally unrestrained) teaching, that was invading the church. Today it is the secular notions of a human-centred, psycho-social orientated and revised nominal so-called Christianity, often based on a theological liberalism that allows moral relativism and New Age ideologies to distort the truth. In other words, the morally unrestrained teaching is present today, causing division and schism, and propagating a false gospel.

That Jude, and this Jude writing to my Journal, concur on the need for the warning. This is not a lost cause as God remains Sovereign. But there will be many who become hopeless and desperate cases by their own defiance of Him. Persisting in sin - that is, deliberately and unrepentantly breaking God’s moral laws that He has established - is not at all a wise thing to do. Indeed, it is very risky if you know anything at all about God. Jude warns against allowing these false teachers to continue having influence in the church, and for the church to defend the truth agressively against this infiltration. He writes that the church must contend for the one true faith once-and-for-all-delivered to the saints, and people of faith must persevere to the end by resisting the false teachers and following the truth.

Sometimes I have to conclude that some of our church leaders do not bother to read this important little epistle near the back of their Bibles, or maybe if they do, they are just not the “people of faith” themselves. What an awful thing to come to conclude!

Email Judah

Just recently I read in the newspaper of an incident that happened between a father and son in the city of Detroit, Michigan.

Because of the appalling nature of it, this news item took me deep into the horror of our human condition and haunted me for the rest of that day… and beyond. How could people behave that way? And yet, they do. How could a father do that to his son? And yet, he did.

That teenager’s last moments must have been everything that is the worst one can imagine… and for those who are left, for them as well. And for me, the other side of the world, a story that I really did not want to read. But it was News, and so it was there in my newspaper, there for me and all others to experience some of the appalling nature of human crime and sin.

Yesterday there was another account of a father and son, this time in my own country. The father also killed the son. For some reason we all had to be told about it. What reason?

It is not that I don’t know these things happen. I know it all too well. As time goes on I am finding myself increasingly more affected by this kind of news, by the sad and terrible things that happen in our world, by the terrible and disgraceful things that people will do to each other. We all end up suffering by being some part of it… having it happen to us directly, or else indirectly by the entrance of it into conscious awareness. For me personally, being made aware has me feeling some measure of responsibility for that which I know, as though I should do whatever I can to stop it from happening.

It is very easy to feel quite helpless in the face of this avalanche of evil, overwhelmed by the sheer amount, intensity and hellishness of it all. It is very easy to reach burn-out before the first hour of morning is up. It is very easy to simply switch off, saying that it is nothing to do with me, and nothing I can do to make it stop. It is very easy not to care anymore. Caring is costly. It takes time, empathy, generosity and faith… faith in myself that what I do counts, and faith in the other that they can respond. Caring will share in the suffering, feel the pain and respond to it, but also feel the joy of suffering relieved.

Is it good that we have these troubling images, photos or verbal accounts of terrible things, thrust at us so often uninvited? Should we avoid them to protect ourselves in some way, thus be safely cacooned away from the reality of others who suffer? Should we be party to their proliferation, and for what purpose? Should there be limits on how much, the nature of their portrayal, and the intensity of assault on awareness. All these questions have played themselves out in my mind over the past few days, and I am still none the wiser for their doing so. Part of me wants to run away from the evil deeds of this world, and part of me knows that I am here to live in it, doing whatever I can to improve it for others… including myself.

Also in our newspaper recently was the obituary of the last Kiwi survivor of the Nazi concentration camps. He had been 14 years old when incarcerated and, lying about his age, was assigned to manual labour thus avoided the gas chamber which was the fate of other children. However, he was operated on by the infamous Dr Josef Mengele and suffered enormous deprivations and acts of barbarous cruelty. At the end of the war he gave evidence at Nuremberg, then immigrated to New Zealand and spent the rest of his life devoted to telling others of the vile atrocities which took place… publicizing and informing the rest of us concerning the Holocaust such that we had firsthand accounts, that we would be aware, that such things should never ever happen again. This tireless witness earned him a Queen’s Service medal for community services in the 2006 Queen’s Birthday honours.

These terrible things thrust into our conscious awareness may not be comfortable or pleasant, but may bring about good in alerting us to what must be avoided in future at all costs… if it will work out that way. But they increase our suffering too, haunted as I am by that terrible deed that took place in Detroit. The publishing of some events can lead others into sin… the temptation to dally with evil, inflaming desires, indulging the senses, committing the acts. I frequently wonder how men deal with those junk mail catelogues of women’s clothes featuring a parade of scantily clad young women with such lovely bodies. How often do those images cause someone to stumble (fall into sin) yet are distributed so freely by marketing companies? We live in a world of temptations, of troubling images, and terrible deeds. I would love not to know about them, but yet I do… and it is important that I do. How can I help stop it if I don’t know it is happening?

As a Christian I do have a responsibility to do what I can to obstruct the proliferation of evil, and not to give myself up to it either. I will avoid promoting it, don’t wish to be assailed by it, but cannot turn my back on it either. It exists, and I must deal with that fact. When it barges into my consciousness, I will counter it with prayer to the One in whom I have faith to move mountains, and in my own mind resort to the antidote offered by Paul, himself in prison at the time, to the church in Philippi almost 2,000 years ago. The antidote follows inscribed on the beautiful image of my beloved Southern Alps here below. Try it for yourselves, and praise Him, our Creator, in doing so.

The Rev. Canon J. Edwin Bacon Jr. is an Episcopal priest, the rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, USA. He is described as a “supporter” of gays and lesbians, and of same-sex marriage. His recent pro-gay comments on the Oprah Winfrey show stunned even Oprah who has some rather way-out New Age beliefs of her own.

“Being gay is a gift from God,” Bacon declared in an episode that aired Jan. 7.

Appearing shocked, Winfrey responded, “Well, you are the first minister I’ve ever heard say, ‘Being gay is a gift from God,’ I can tell you that.”

The Christian Post

The Rev. Bacon clarified his meaning to Oprah a few days later by saying:

I meant exactly what I said. It is so important for every human being to understand that he or she is a gift from God, and particularly people who are marginalized and victimized in our culture. Gay and lesbian people are clearly outcasts in many areas of our life and it’s so important for them to understand that when God made them, God said you are good. That is a gift, that is a blessing, that is the original blessing with which every one of us is made by God and loved by God.

Well, you might think that an Anglican clergyman would know what he is talking about, but this one seems to be making it up as he goes along. These ideas need more than just a few squirts from the can of bs repellent… or else a disclaimer that they are not to be found in the Bible as stated.

Yep, God made us, His creatures. That is not under dispute. God also declared that His creation was good. But that declaration of pleasure in His workmanship came well before everything slid downhill when mankind disobeyed his Creator. Or so the Bible teaches. Contrary to how The Rev. Bacon tells the story, the Biblical version is that mankind messed up Big Time and we are no longer “good”. We are rotten at the core. No matter how hard we try, not one of us is righteous as God had originally made us, and so had first described us (and all His creation) to be good. The Rev. Bacon has muddled his timing in that respect.

Yes, we are a gift… children are definitely a gift from God to their parents, friends to each other, and so forth. But The Rev. Bacon has added his own little spin to that, a rather subtle spin that can have us thinking we are “good” because we are good gifts from Him. Be careful not to fall for that little confusion. We are not basically good. The Bible does not teach that. Instead, it teaches that we are all flawed beings, far from perfect, far from righteous, while still being gifts from God to each other.

Being gay (homosexual) is not a gift - not according to the Bible. Homosexual practice is described as sexual immorality, a sin, a behaviour of flawed individuals and just one more falling short in our efforts to glorify God. There are lists of gifts mentioned in Scripture, but absolutely nowhere is this human flaw included as one of them. The Rev. Bacon is making it up. This is man-made stuff, not genuine Biblical Christian teaching at all. This man might be a clergyman, but he is actually a false teacher, one listening to the political agendas of the day and bending Christian truth that cannot be bent and still remain truth.

Check this out: Jesus and Homosexuality

Christians are often slandered for quoting verses from Scripture, accused of taking them out of context to throw around rather like a silly bun fight. I can find plenty of Biblical references to back up this theologically sound Christian position from which I challenge the nonsense of The Rev. Bacon. However, it does get tedious when the false teacher has his feet firmly caught in the mire of liberal theology and usually spurns Biblical authority anyway. I have already done so many times before, in many posts to Judah’s Journal. The bottom line is that we can either accept Biblical wisdom and truth, or listen instead to secular humanism that is profoundly anti-Christian at its core. It definitely is the latter that the Rev. Bacon is teaching.

It may be a little while ago now but I can still remember perfectly clearly. New life began when a sperm penetrated an ovum. This was called fertilization. It was also called conception. In terms of human reproduction, a new individual, another little person, had been conceived. All the DNA required to direct the development of this new little being was present in that fertilized ovum, and already the process of cell division was taking place. Its conception had occurred.

But my High School days were some time ago, and the most certain things in life are not just taxes and death but also the fact that things change. Language, or the use of language - the meanings of words - also undergo change.

The word conception these days has been divorced from the event of fertilization and is now used in conjunction with the event of implantation. A new life is not considered conceived until the fertilized ovum, by then a clump of cells (called a blastocyst) following its numerous cell divisions, has become successfully implanted in the uterine wall. Conception is said to occur upon implantation, not upon fertilization. This change in definition has become so commonplace that it is now reflected in standard medical reference books such as OB & GYN Terminology (E. Hughes, ed., Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 1972):

Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization.

This is the new meaning of the word, the way it is to be used these days - not as I was taught in High School biology.

So when does pregnancy begin? The Planned Parenthood Federation of America offers an answer:

Medical and scientific experts agree that pregnancy begins with implantation. It happens several days after fertilization when the developing pre-embryo is implanted in the wall of the uterus. Implantation begins the release of hormones that are necessary to support a pregnancy.

In short, a woman is not pregnant until the developing pre-embryo is attached to her and gets nutrients from her. For example, a fertilized egg in a petri dish does not represent a pregnancy.

(Reference: How Pregnancy Happens)

Well, we know that saying a petri dish is pregnant is rather silly. But when this event occurs within a woman, not a petri dish, then that distinction of language is hardly necessary. Or is it?

If a woman is not pregnant, then she cannot miscarry nor have an abortion. If a fertilized ovum is not a newly conceived individual, a new life, then there can be no moral implications in making certain no implantation will occur. Birth control measures that prevent implantation can be regarded as no different in this respect than those that prevent fertilization in the first place. All are bundled together under the term contraception and no distinction between them is considered necessary. If a blastocyst or “pre-embryo” (don’t these technical terms help us to de-humanize nicely?) is deliberately deprived of the requirements to continue its life and development, then contraception can euphemistically be said to have taken place. It is a far more comfortable and forgiving word than abortion.

Unique DNA is considered the determination of a specific individual. The DNA of all individuals is proven to be set at fertilization, not at implantation which is just one of many stages of human development. Choosing implantation as the stage at which conception occurs (and thus new life begins) is indeed arbitary. Why choose implantation and not some other stage? Why especially when fertilization is the point at which one’s unique DNA is set? In the past the first movements felt by the expectant mother, the quickening, have been considered the beginning of life. We count a person’s age, their length of life, from their date of birth, not that of any pre-born stage - but clearly life had begun much sooner than that. The fallacy of arguing for implantation as the beginning of life is that any stage of development can then be chosen to redefine this occurrence. It becomes a matter of personal opinion, open to any interpretation, justified however one chooses (e.g. the irrationality of a pregnant petri dish) and moral codes can be overwritten by the political agendas of various lobby groups and governments. It seems they already have!

The stark and unrelenting truth is covered up by this clever shift in language. As I know it, my son was conceived the instant that an ovum of mine was fertilized by one of my husband’s sperm. It didn’t happen in a petri dish so I am quite happy to be considered pregnant right from the time the tiny fertilized ovum he was came tumbling down my fallopian tube. He had come into being even when I was not aware that he had. There was no time between fertilization and implantation that he wasn’t alive and growing. The conditions for his survival needed modification all the time, and while implantation was an obviously essential one, it hadn’t been required during those first few days when he would have been labelled a “pre-embryo” and yet those cells were most definitely alive. Essential too was continuing placental proficiency, and protection from all kinds of potential harm.

Language can play clever tricks. Meanings of words can be changed to provide spin, to distort or mask particular ideas, but none of those changes can alter the truth - the absolute truth that is absolute reality no matter what.

This world has gone crazy. Please tell me I’m wrong. Over the past half century we have allowed ourselves to be fooled as much by the Emperor’s tailors as all, except for the little boy, did in Hans Christian Andersen’s original fairy tale. It took a child to speak the truth. The majority these days are still denying it, taking it apart, recreating and redefining it, and believing their own fantasies and falsehoods. As a result our culture extols, exalts and celebrates what is disordered, chaotic, unreal, irrational, immoral and ugly. This is the age of subversion… the age of undermining, pulling down, ripping apart, and cobbling back together random mis-matched parts into any new form, a partiche that exemplifies the senselessness and meaningless that results from the process.

To the left are two sculptures you will find in Wellington, NZ’s picturesque capital city. The first is named “Doo Doos” and is a pile of boulders erected by Peter Kundycki back in 1998, to be found at Moa Point. The second is a steel construction by Guy Ngan, made originally in 1974 and reinstalled in Wakefield Street in 2006. It is named “Geometric Growth”. It appears to defy gravity by not toppling down.

The pile of boulders is simply constructed… just a pile of boulders. Coming upon this on Wellington’s rugged coastline, it does not seem particularly out of place. It is really all rather ordinary. Clearly they were not put there by the forces of Nature, resembling more the tell-tale sign that Man has been there. They are quite a neat and tidy pile of big stones. But the fact that someone put them there could be considered intriguing. Why do that? Being human, we like to look for a meaning. Without knowing the name of this pile of stones our imagination is free to wander. But knowing the name brings one up with a jolt… a dive into the distasteful. This is the developmental level of 2 year olds, but why cause us to focus on excrement? What is the point of that? This is the subversion of normal decency in human expression. Yuk!

Does geometric growth have a way of defying gravity against all appearances? I don’t know that it does. But the second sculpture was created over twenty years earlier than the first so is perhaps less evolved in the ongoing march of postmodernism. It brings home a certain reality. Why doesn’t it simply topple over? It looks as though it ought. But of course we know the real truth… that besides all visual appearances there is an adherence to engineering principles and their solid basis in absolutes. Gravity exists to demonstrate the hypocrisy and lies of postmodernism. One cannot subvert gravity and be immune to the universal effect of it. As an absolute it applies regardless. Engineers know this even when artists try to tell us something different.

Personally I have more antipathy towards the pile of boulders, knowing the “meaning” given them by the sculptor, than I do for the almost toppling boxes. But that is because I am not doing what postmodernists do… interpret all meaning for themselves. Moving on from these two (admittedly rather mild when considering craziness) examples of material culture, what else makes me think this world is crazy? There is much more, and more serious at that.

In music composition there is a preoccupation with sound that is atonal, that is dissociative and jarring, that could be called polystylist as it takes ingredients from simply everywhere, and has a quality of randomness. There is disorder and chaos, unpredictability and unpleasantness. The lyrics of songs are often pointless, repetitious, inane or simply vulgar. Or their themes are of meaninglessness and despair. In theatre and cinema, plays and movies have no point, or the point is subversive, the characters specializing in not relating, or their relationships are dysfunctional, immoral, and the language becomes foul. Note the censor’s warning “contains explicit sex scenes, violence, offensive language” attached to nearly every movie these days.

I find this ugly. There is enough already in this world that is ugly… such as man’s inhumanity to man, the horrors that people must live through under tyrannical governments, in war, in poverty and deprivation, and without aid and relief, in despair without hope. But in our own crazy society of today we seek liberation by throwing ourselves straight into the arms of bondage to falsehood, freedom through the deconstruction of truth, salvation by the transgression and abandonment of moral absolutes. This is absolutely crazy. When are we going to get real - and I mean real? When are we going to accept that this form of social Marxism (for that is what it is) does not work for us? Truth is not socially constructed, defined by “what feels good” or “what works for me”. It is that which corresponds to reality, is universal and absolute, eternal and fixed, revealed not made. I certainly prefer that kind of truth when my life depends on it… such as 35,000 feet above the ground in an aircraft built on sound engineering principles, not those beliefs that simply made the designers feel good at the time, or somehow fulfilled as in the building of a pile of stony doo-doos. Heaven help us!

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 resources including full knowledge of hindsight. Their condemnation is often keenly and exquisitively felt.

But whoa!

What parent has never made a mistake? What parent can heartlessly throw the first stone? After all, even the very best parenting can not guarantee a successful outcome with every child, and the child himself assumes increasing responsibility for his own decisions and behaviours as he grows older. Not all kids are ones who will listen and learn, who will profit from the input, whose boundary-testing does not cause the carnage with which some families must cope. And then there are all those outside influences - that of their peers, extended family, teachers, society, and a huge variety of components of their culture, own sought-after experiences, own choices and decisions, and not to exclude their own inherited temperament and range of other personality characteristics. The effect of a morally destructive media plus the easy availability of drugs are two major causes of trouble. The influence of the peer group increases as that of the parents reduces, the youngster needing to separate to become his own person. One can have the wisest and most caring parents showing a good level of involvement in their growing child’s development, and the child pursues a need to follow the herd in certain matters of youth culture, making a succession of bad decisions - and derails.

Some parents find a great deal of truth in the saying “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”. Some children are just not mainstream kids but have special needs arising from pscho-medical disorders affecting behaviour. These children can still have the best of parents but their behaviour causes problems with far-reaching results. Educated about the dangers in society, provided with healthy and appropriate responses matching their needs, nurtured in all good ways possible, these immature teens and young adults get into trouble regardless. Their absolutely exasperated parents may have received no real support - just more and more blame plus further obstacles in their attempts to do the best for their kids.

But back to the father who took his own life… It is the parents who experience the pain, the shame, the guilt and the blame. It is their hopes and dreams that die as their children choose a very different path, one of moral bankrupcy and wastage. It is they who grieve the loss of a son or a daughter still living, the price that is paid for having loved and continuing to love despite their pain and despair. It is their lost investment in the future, their considered failure, their apparent wrongdoing, their aching broken hearts, their utter exhaustion, their erupting volcanic emotions, a broadening larval flow of molten feelings turning to dead ash all that lived in their wake - their life, their death, their hell. It grows big. It consumes. And it destroys… if allowed to do so.

Suicide is never a solution. While certainly removing the sufferer from the scene, it heartlessly flings the pain at others. An angry act, a desperate act, a selfish act, an immoral act - but an understandably human act to those with compassion. We came into this world with little and all we have was given to us by God’s graciousness - our life, our bodies, our parents, the meeting of needs. It is human to cling to certain things as though they were our life support when that is not necessarily so. A child is a gift, a blessing - but not a necessity for life. A child who taxes us beyond endurance is experienced as a dubious gift, a dubious blessing - but is still not a necessity for life. The investment in that child is not a necessity for life, but if seen as such then that life support is fragile for having been taken out of the hand of God. The pain is real. The grief is real. The destruction is real. Only in returning to the Source of our being for real life support do these hurts eventually heal. Letting go is not throwing it all away.

I am heartened by the knowledge that God is our holy Father, and if ever there was a perfect parent, then He is surely that. But look around you. Just look at what we are up to - we, His creatures, and those of us who claim to be His children! Is this truly what He wanted for each of us? Some are doing better than others, but in all honesty, we have all gone astray and not followed His Will for us in everything. Our Father, the perfect parent, has a nursery full of wayward naughty kids! All of us have sinned and fallen short of His glory! And our perfect Father must be as hurt and despairing no less than any one of us who may be suffering the grief of wayward youngsters. He most definitely knows this kind of grief and although He disciplines with a holy Tough Love for those of us who are His children, He is not hard hearted. To let go the false life support, to put one’s hand in His, to depend on Him instead of on those around us… it is that which makes true these words of Jesus:

It is a funny thing about our use of language that it is considered polite to substitute one word for another when the most specific word might conjure up something a little too indelicate for the context of the conversation. Some words get to change meanings altogether that way. For example, the first time I heard an American asking to use the bathroom it really puzzled me that they wanted to go there, to the room that contained the bath or shower. Oh, it was the… er, you know… that was required. So why not say since that was in a different little room of its own? But trust an Australian to clear the matter up. My son, well used to polite Americanisms, discretely asked the waiter in an Aussie restaurant where the bathroom was, and received the answer in a nice loud voice “Oh, you mean the dunny, mate? It’s over there.” Yep, that sure was calling a spade, a spade.

Of course euphemisms have their place, like the lubricant that reduces the heat and wear of friction when two objects rub together, the reality and its representative in speech must slide against each other smoothly in the niceties of polite society. But one that I personally dislike is the saying used to refer to death - passed, passed away, passed on, passing. Is death so indelicate that we must misuse another word to mean someone has died and is now dead? It would seem so. It is used out of respect and sensitivity for the feelings of the bereaved of course, and I have no problem with respect and sensitivity for others where that is appropriate. But how long before those words will themselves become too indelicate and require another to take their place as well? Over time we will probably euphemize ourselves in lingusitic circles, for what it matters.

However, I don’t care that much if people choose to talk that way. Instead, something else I hear said next has peaked my interest more. It has become very commonplace these days to say of someone who has just… er, passed… that now “she will be at peace” and “he has gone to a better place” and other kindly cultural notions of whatever might be hereafter assuming such a thing or place exists. Well, I would certainly like to hope that is so, but as a Christian I cannot always agree with sentiments such as those. For folk who had no time for Christ, who did not accept God’s gift of grace so have a saving faith in Him, then I would tell a lie against my Christian faith to agree to such sentiments as those. But neither would I be so cruel as to say as much right then to the ones who are left behind and hurting. Turning the focus back on the bereaved instead, commenting compassionately on their experience of the loss, is one way to avoid compromising the truth of one’s Christian faith. After all, it is for God to make the judgement, and no other.

Two entries ago, back on September 16, I made the statement that in this current age many have adopted a religion of equality, and of human rights; that we have this new religion of Human Rights where, unlike Biblical Christianity, equality and inclusiveness are both virtues to embrace. Looking a little closer at this exaltation of equality, I can see at least two basic underlying cultural constructs which help foster it.

They are:
1. The notion that no one is better than anyone else - and being created equal means we ought to stay equal.
2. The notion that everyone is entitled - and that they are entitled equally.

These ideas may be rather fashionable at present but they present me with a few concerns. Equality has spawned a child called Mediocrity, and together they are the enemy of Excellence.

Once upon a time there was an interesting thing called a Bell Curve. It probably still exists somewhere in modern life, but there are places where I just don’t hear it ringing anymore. One such place is in education. No longer is it politically correct to have minorities either end of the curve, flunkies two or three stanines to the left, whiz kids way over to the right, and most of the rest of us forming the body of the bell. If we are to be consistent with the notion of equality, then the bell just has to go. Passing some and failing others is like saying that some are better than others. Same with giving some top grades and most only average grades. And in this country, you do not fail - you simply have not yet achieved. To help solve this little problem of inequality, we have seen a “dumbing down” so that the majority under the bell can be given top grades for being what they are - ordinary and average, mediocre. There is no encouragement for excellence, no responsibility for doing better, as mediocrity - the child of equality - will bring the same reward.

The idea of entitlement also undermines excellence. Human Rights are becoming legion. We are all entitled to rights, things that are to be ours based on the fact that we are able to breathe. It might be fun to list them, but my list would drop right off the end of the page, on to the floor, extend out the door and way down the street. Not only do we have all these rights based solely on nothing more than our ability to breathe, but everyone deserves the best to be given to them as well. What has this to do with the death of excellence? Being given things without working for them, striving for them, earning them, making sacrifices for them, makes excellence quite meaningless - it doesn’t mean anything as it is defunct, deposed by the little goddess, mediocrity.

However, sheer common sense tells me something else. It simply is not true that no one is better than anyone else. We all have differing talents, natural abilities, “smarts” if you like. Some are just smarter than others. Some are more motivated than others. Some work harder than others. However you look at it, we are simply not equal in our performance, and pretending that we are, worshipping this notion of equality and extolling the virtues of mediocrity, is cultural idolatry.

We are not entitled to equal shares. The rewarding of excellence must be encouraged to defeat this politically correct notion before we lose our inspiration, waste ourselves and all that is superlative.

In a representative democracy the people do not vote on most government decisions directly, but select representatives to a governing body or assembly in order to do so for them. In contemporary usage, the term “democracy” refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative, liberal or illiberal. The danger of democracy is that the rule of the majority will marginalize the few, but where there is a sense of justice the few must be considered and their concerns dutifully addressed.

Here is my description of democracy that is befitting of the times.

Three wolves and one sheep are voting on what to have for lunch. The wolves, being a product of this postmodern age, have found a conscience committed to the fostering of pluralism and protection of minorities, especially those that bleet the loudest, and so will denigrate their own lupine cultural heritage while allowing the sheep to usurp the balance of power and manipulate the wolves to ravage themselves apart.

But tarry here a moment and consider this, that as the sheep devoured three wolves, the wolves in turn are destined to wander through the countryside clothed in the body of their diner, searching for a way back but finding only the path leading to the middens of some scattered memories among the new injustices of a most uncertain future.

The wolves had a commitment to each other also, and sacrificing cultural integrity for the sake of political correctness was a dereliction of their duty. Tearing up firm foundations to replace them with the fubbery of fashionable philosophies will serve us all quite badly in the end. From here and now to where? The desolation of a darkness gathering momentum and assembling itself in order to engulf and overwhelm is already at the door and the lair is left wide open.

Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury hopped off the fence where he had been perching for quite some time and landed with his feet on the side of “inclusiveness is not a Christian virtue”.

In this current age many have adopted a religion of equality, and of human rights. This modern religion abhors the fact that the Christian God is an absolute monarch who demands to be honoured as supreme. In these postmodern times the meaning of the word “honour” has made a subtle shift from “respect given for superiority, for having greater qualities” to something more like “grant acceptance for being similar”. For instance, I respect and honour your differences not necessarily because they are superior in some way to mine, but because we have an equality one with each other. We shall celebrate pluralism and multiculturalism in such a way that we become an amorphous mass of individual differences bobbing around in a plasmic sea of universalism - as all of us are equal. Today the message is to believe in yourself, to worship your self. Your own perception is the truth, as truthful to you in equal amount as mine is to me. Objectivity went out the window as relativism came in the door. The great human melting pot, with evil intolerance neutralizing as it bubbles and brews, gives off the aroma of a new spirtuality that all can accept and thus we will all be One with each other and with the gods.

Considering universalism in its more religious context, it is the unbiblical doctrine that states that God will eventually bring everybody who has ever lived into a saving relationship with Him. In other words, it states that everybody will be saved, and that God will condemn nobody to Hell. It is understandable how such a doctrine could gain wide acceptance among today’s pluralistic, liberal society, but it is not in any way compatible with Biblical Christianity.

While Biblical Christianity does not have “inclusiveness” as a Christian virtue, it is true that we are to love one another including our enemies - it is most certainly inclusive as to whom we are to love. But otherwise it is exclusive at its very core. It is unique. That is an objective fact.

So today we have the new religion of Human Rights where, unlike Biblical Christianity, equality and inclusiveness are both virtues to embrace. Since the attempt to strip the God of Love of all other aspects of His character we are now left with the proposition that He is merely something ineffectual that must be improved upon by human hands. Human Rights will mend the errors of that God. Forget it if you choose, but the God of Love is also the God of Truth, that He is holy and righteous, and as Monarch reigns over an exclusive hierachy of inequality. Although He is supremely just, He is far from politically correct. Forget and you will be sorely in need of His forgiveness.

With rights come responsibilities. Responsibilities? What are those? Yes, and just one small reason why this new religion is far from whole.

That companion volume was nudged off the shelf quite long ago, left to be swept up and thrown out with litter from the new adulescent twixter generation. Those young golden people are now plump and sadly clever from suckling on the rewards of work-worn parents. But Justice, these days mistaken for Revenge, will one day exercise this given alter-ego and take exactly that for having been so wrongfully reframed. Father Time still wraughts woes on Mother Nature just as it was before, these little gods and godesses returning to the dust with souls lost forever to their damnation. Pity them, but spare a thought for what it was that brought them to that place. Christians must turn about and tear asunder the modern philosophical backdrop of their lives, and standing in His scorching light with sword unsheathed do battle for their very souls. The myriad myths of wanton mischief spawned by our modern notions move stealthily afoot. Under whose banner next will we find them ready to unfurl their lies?

So, strangely I heard no great applause when the Archbishop finally decided just which way to jump. They who would ordain as clergy those living unrepentantly in sin must surely be dismayed, yet all others would be quite relieved. But wait… with both Judaism and Islam hovering in the wings, I wonder has our Rowan changed his heart and soul or merely just his mind, and what allegiances are now forming together with the shuffling of ecclesiastic slippers before the burning logs of Lambeth’s hearth?

A relatively new cultural phenomenon has appeared over the last generation which is stressing out some parents of young people and presenting implications for the shaping of society. Where once we had the transition stage between childhood and adulthood known as adolescence, there is now a futher transition stage appearing - advanced adolescence - which some call adulescence. These are the 18+ year olds who are resisting the acceptance of adult responsibility and want to continue their unhindered play right through to closer to 30 years of age.

The January 2005 edition of TIME magazine featured an article entitled “Meet the Twixters” and introduced the new trend of youngsters who are reluctant to grow up.

These “kidults” still live with their parents and hop around from job-to-job and relationship-to-relationship. They lack direction, commitment, financial independence, and personal responsibility. They are boomerang kids, adult teenagers, and they are much more than a generational hiccup or a temporary fad.

In fact, according to sociologists, psychologists, and demographers they are a permanent trend. So much so that many countries have already named them: they are called “Kippers” in England, “Nesthockers” in Germany, “Mammones” in France, and “Freeters” in Japan. In many countries they comprise over 20 percent of their age group, and the numbers are rising rapidly. In Italy, for instance, over 50% of young people over age 20 still live with their parents.

In America the percentage of 26-year-olds living with their parents has doubled since 1970, from 11% to 20%. That means one in five American 26-year-olds lacks the financial independence, personal responsibility, or courage to leave the shelter of their parent's roof.

It would seem that this is a product of affluent high-technology societies where youngsters have become accustomed to a comfortable standard of living without ever having to work for it themselves, plus a liking for “toys” with which they want to play for as long as they can. The toys are often those which isolate them from the real world, providing a substitute virtual world where they have the illusion of control and authority - again, without earning what their parents’ generation regard as a privilege based on the merit of achievement. They include computers and internet surfing, Game boys, flat-screen TV, video movies, iPods. With parents providing daily needs, any income earned is regarded discretionary and can be spent on these toys plus expensive cars, frequent eating out, designer clothes and numerous vacations. The emphasis is on “having fun” which is perceived as diametrically opposite to the idea of accepting responsibility and doing for others. What self-absorbed Twixter would want to give one thought to a house mortgage, a lawn to mow, a marriage commitment and children for whom to provide?

As usual, the blame tends to be put upon parents for providing too much for their offspring. It is customary to blame parents, and sometimes they do have a big part in the play - but not always. It is often forgotten that, in the normal course of ongoing psycho-social development, the peer group increasingly wields incredible influence and as well as that, there are other “outside influences” such as the education system, and the bombardment of media pushing current age social philosophies that includes consumerism and self-coddling materialism. You cannot wrap your children in cottonwool and keep them from being part of their generation, from exposure to the world, or from having a will and a mind of their own. And while we are busy blaming parents, we are perpetuating a large part of the problem - the denial of an individual’s self-responsibility. Indeed, taking responsibility for oneself is not a terribly fashionable attitude at present. After all, there is a reason for everything and so many ways by which to be let off the hook - my upbringing, my genes, the government, what someone else did or said, I didn’t know, I couldn’t help it, people shouldn’t behave that way to me, I have “rights” which were denied me, I am owed… and so forth. Many people (and definitely not only young folks) think more about what others can do for them than what they can do for others - and what their “rights” are more than their responsibilities. Maturity comes only when folk turn this the other way around, when they stop putting upon others, blaming others, or holding others responsible. Maturity comes when folk take responsibility for themselves - which is not what Twixters are very keen to do.

As a parent of a would-be Twixter, I am looking for ways to counter the phenomenon in my own youngster, and it is far from easy. It is quite the understatement, that being a good parent is one of the hardest jobs in the world. There is a tightrope to walk, and instead of a safety net below there is just a sea of pointing fingers and blaming mouths.

I have found something quite heartening just recently - the blog of teenager brothers, Brett and Alex, who are uncommonly perceptive and insightful youngsters willing to tackle this phenomenon from their Christian world view, appealing to their own generation to consider the consequences and take ownership of them. They offer some excellent ideas for doing just that, and the first in their series of six blog posts on the subject can be found here: Kidults (Part 1): Adolescence Is Permanent. Scroll down their right-hand sidebar and you will find links to the whole six blog posts they have written on this subject, plus other articles on related issues. You will also find that I have linked to their blog, The Rebelution, on my own left-hand sidebar under the heading “Other Worthy Blogs”. These youngsters are very good news.

As Alex and Brett write:

The kidult [twixter] mentality that uses Mom and Dad to subsidize an extravagant lifestyle is blatantly unbiblical. It directly violates the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and your mother.” Sometimes we need to be reminded that this commandment doesn’t expire at age 18. Kidults aren’t using their time at home to prepare for marriage or to serve others; they’re using it to stall and to serve themselves.

Parents are often held to ransom by their young adult children who would use them in such a way. No parent wants to see their child “living rough” out in the street, and turning out into such a situation that child whom you have nurtured and loved is an extremely difficult thing to do. But this is exactly the Tough Love that some parents are called upon to dispense, and the “how to”, “whether to” and “when to” is fraught with practical as well as emotional difficulties. Meanwhile, parents may suffer the frustration and despair of having their own lives impacted upon by another whose presence puts “in your face” the modern day sub-culture that espouses values often foreign to their own. The parental task of successfully launching their youngsters is delayed, not achieved, and may bring about a sense of bewilderment and failure with home becoming an inter-generational war zone rather than a place of peace and comfort for which they had hoped. Not all parents mind, of course. In some households there is mutual benefit in this situation. Perhaps it depends on the level of self-absorption and the degree of reciprocity that can make it work without too much tension. But in the overall scheme of things this still constitutes a delay in individual growth and development, the stalling of the inevitable, and a resultant reshaping of the nature of society. I’m not convinced that it is a good thing at all, but more a weakening of our moral character which will most likely bring about unfavourable repercussions in it’s wake.

CLOTHES MAKE THE MAN — “Appearances count for a lot. A similar expression was current among the ancient Greeks: ‘The garment makes the man.’ In the form ‘apparel makes the man’ the idea turned up in England as early as the 16th century. A century later it was sometimes put as ‘the taylor makes the man.”
~ from “The Dictionary of Cliches” by James Rogers (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985).

Two little items of news appeared in this morning’s newspaper (among others) and while in separate columns they rather coincidentally turned out to be along side each other.

The first concerned something going on in Britain at the moment - Butlers in the Buff, a business success story where male waiters wear only a bow tie, collar, cuffs and a bottom-revealing apron. This was marketed as a tasteful alternative to strippers and pole dancers and the like, all strictly “no touch” and most definitely to be “cheeky but clean”. To be considered for such a job one had to be male, nice, charming, a gentlemanly type - rather James Bond-ish, obviously young and in suitably good shape.

Well, I need not apply. I don’t have all the right chromosomes for a start - and no comment regarding the rest. But concerning just the chromosomes, I do for the next little story.

Father Felice, an Italian priest, has put up a sign at the entrance to the church in Cinisello Balsamo, Milan. The sign reads: “God knew what your navel looked like before you were born, so there is no need to expose it in church.” Father Felice is reported to have said that he put up the sign because his parish cannot afford to hire guards to keep out low-cut jeans and high-cut tops. It would seem that young ladies with bare midriffs are not very welcome.

Humans do have a tendency to get rather hung up on the human body. Some like to look at it, and obviously some don’t. Having seen the unclothed version in various shapes, sizes and conditions a vast and countless number of times in the course of a professional (hospital) career, for me personally I can probably “take it or leave it” without getting overwrought in any way. I guess there is that factor of cultural normality that one would usually take into account - the expectation of what you might see depending on where you happen to look. There are plenty of barely clad bodies down at the beach on a hot summer’s day, but when I go out to dine my expectation is not usually the rear cheeky smile of someone’s naked behind. Of course, if I do not fancy bare bottoms with my buffet, I need not visit there again.

But those low-cut jeans and high-cut tops are a youth fashion thing and it is quite customary to see them wherever one finds young ladies who like to be fashionable. They wouldn’t suit me despite my son’s recommendation that I should “get with it” and risk the kidney chill. No, not really for me. But for many, it is. Clothes - all the why, what, when and where about them - are largely cultural matters.

Now Father Felice has adopted something less than a water-tight argument for his ban on belly buttons. So God has probably seen your one even before it came about, but while that might be a reason for not needing to expose it, that might equally be a reason for not needing to hide it. The problem with keeping out low-cut jeans and high-cut tops is that you also keep out the person inside them. Is that what he wants?

On Sundays my mother used to dress me up in my best clothes - best frock, best shoes, and even a little hat to match. I hated the hat but that didn’t come into it. I was admonished not to get dirty, and most definately not to swing upsidedown on the bikestands on my way to visit God. That certainly wasn’t much fun for a kid who liked swinging upsidedown on bikestands. The odd thing was that my mother remembered hating having to take an umbrella with her when she was a kid being sent off to visit God, and she used to hide it under a hedge in order to reclaim it on the way back. But if I had expected some leniency on account of that, then I was right out of luck. My mother had since become a grownup and that put paid to any leniency of that kind. Sitting in church with elastic under one’s chin is quite irksome. I did sometimes wonder if God would mind very much if I just took it off provided I didn’t forget and leave it behind.

Does God really mind about things like that? If God can see one’s navel, and surely He can since He can also see into our hearts and minds, and that is where we are told that He looks - into hearts and minds, I mean, rather than at navels - then maybe other things matter more to Him than those cultural outside appearances.