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.”

Today is a sad day for the Anglican Communion ~ 4th November, 2006.

On the same day that Mrs Katharine Jefferts Schori was ordained Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in America, bringing with her non-orthodox doctrine and schism within the church, the Bishop of Dunedin went ahead despite protest and ordained a practising homosexual man as deacon within the Church of England in New Zealand. This too flies in the face of orthodox doctrine and further cements schism within the church.

During the ceremony, the Bishop of Dunedin (the Right Rev George Connor) asked the congregation whether the deacons should be ordained. Three people - Rev Malcolm Falloon, Rev Wally Behan and John Bryant, all of Christchurch - said they should not, and when the response of three objectors went unheeded, they left quietly.

The Rev Falloon rightfully claims that the ordination is not consistent with the rules of the church, which had from its first days insisted on marriage or celibacy for its ordained ministers. To proceed with the ordination was also to dismiss calls for a moratorium on the ordination of gay clergy from Anglican leaders worldwide. Most people ordained as deacons are subsequently ordained as priests after a short time. However, the Dunedin diocese has a liberal track record, having in the past welcomed a gay priest to be dean of St Paul’s Cathedral and installing a woman, the Rt Rev Penny Jamieson, as its bishop. The Anglican Church internationally is divided on the ordination of gay clergy, and New Zealand churches are generally regarded as being at the liberal end of the Anglican spectrum.

Statement of Protest at Dunedin Ordination

The following is the letter that the Rev Falloon, member of the Latimer Fellowship, wrote the day before to the Bishop of Dunedin as a last entreaty to stop the ordination going ahead.

November 3, 2006

Dear Bishop George,

I urgently ask you to reconsider your actions in the light of the Statement of your own Diocesan Council. For they plainly state that they are aware of divergent views about same-sex ordinations, yet say they are satisfied that this ordination is consistent with the rules of our church.

Forgive me for being blunt, but since when does a Diocesan Council make decision for the the whole church? Especially when they themselves admit that there are differing views in our Church. Even if you take one particular view on what is permitted, you must wait until proper constitutional process has taken place. To not uphold the discipline and due process as given in our constitution places you in breach of the very canons you are claiming as the basis of proceeding with the ordination.

If it is so clear that same-sex relationships can be blessed and that persons in such relationships can be ordained, why has our General Synod not passed a resolution declaring this to be the case? Why has so much distressed been caused in our church over something that is meant to be plain? The facts are that, at the very least, this has not been tested against our canons and therefore all such ordinations must wait until that process has taken place. In this regard, it is a simple matter of justice for those who disagree with you.

For it places our Archbishops and the house of Bishops in a extremely difficult position. Do they share your view concerning same-sex blessings? If so, why are they unable to say so publicly? If they take different views on the matter (as appears to be the case), then you must postpone the ordination until there is agreement as to what our constitution does and does not permit. Due process is just as much a part of our constitution as the rules themselves.

It also places me and others who share my views in a difficult position. For under Title D we are required to exercise a duty of collaboration with their colleagues in this Church. Since our church has not yet finished its process of discernment on this matter, how can we in good conscience maintain such a duty?

The same paragraph (Canon 1, Part A, paragraph 3) also requires that all ordained ministers have a public duty of ensuring the regulations and Canons of this Church are complied with. Therefore, for this ordination to proceed, it will not only disregard the views of a large section of our church but will also precipitate a constitutional crisis for which there has been no precedence (as claimed by your Diocesan Council).

Ordinations are for the whole church and so it is wrong for the particular opinion of any one Bishop and Diocesan Council to circumvent a process that should involve us all.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Falloon
(Latimer Warden)

When the Church Loses its Way” - echoes of Bishop Latimer’s 16th century call for reformation.

The liberal faction keeps insisting that we all “listen” to each other, and that this listening process goes on and on and on for an interminable length of time. I am not sure anymore what we are to “listen” to. Is it each other? Or for a change of God’s mind on matters? For centuries now the church has been quite clear about what is God’s mind on matters of sexual immorality and false doctrine, but now it is being claimed that He might have changed His mind - we must listen to hear Him say so - just as our culture changes according to new ideas of mankind. This is not a case of “picking on” homosexuality, but it is a case of a mounted political attack by the gay lobby who has pushed their agenda on all of us. Equally unsuitable for a leadership role in the church would be someone in a committed relationship involving extra-marital affairs, or incest, or paediaphilia, or bestiality, or drug addiction, or burglary, or fraud. We are being pressured to believe that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle, not a lifestyle of deliberate sin that the Bible says that it is. And so we must keep listening for God to catch up with the times, to acknowledge that He had got it wrong. Do read Homosexuality and the Great Commandment by The Very Rev. Dr. Peter C. Moore. Well, it is no wonder we are having to listen a long time. But what is this? While listening and listening, the liberals are going ahead regardless? Unable to wait for God, or for conservative Christians to catch up, they are taking the Church down this heterodoxical path away from the narrow gate we are told to go through. By making such choices they are losing the Way.

And a statement from Bishop George Connor, Anglican Bishop of Dunedin, and the Diocesan Council of the Diocese of Dunedin…

The Bishop and the Diocesan Council are satisfied that this ordination [of someone in a committed same sex relationship] is consistent with the rules of our church and with the past practice of this diocese.

They are aware that divergent views are held in the church about such ordinations, and that people of good will and deeply reasoned faith stand on both sides of the argument.

It is in the nature of our sexuality that it evokes deep responses, linked to our sense of identity, and those responses can be polarising: Issues of human sexuality are currently a matter of debate in the world wide Anglican Communion and in this country and diocese.

Bishop Connor and the Dunedin Diocesan Council rejoice at the beginning of these new ministries and pray that the new deacons be supported in their ministry.

They also acknowledge the pain of those who cannot agree with this decision and commit themselves to listening and dialogue and further exploration of the issues.

I am left shaking my head. So much for all this ridiculous “listening” when they take no notice of anything but themselves.

This is the eve of the ordination of three new deacons to the Church of England diocese of Dunedin, New Zealand.

One of those to be ordained is a practising homosexual, and his ordination is threatening to split the Church in New Zealand and the Anglican Communion. The Latimer Fellowship (a 60-year-old society of Evangelical Christians within the Anglican Church who seek to maintain the authority of the Bible in the church's life) and Anglican Mainstream NZ have written a letter to the three Archbishops of the New Zealand Church appealing to them to stop or postpone the ordination of a man who is understood to be in an 18-year same-sex relationship. The Bishop of Dunedin, the Rt Revd George Connor, has announced his intention to ordain him in Dunedin on Saturday 4th November. The view expressed in the letter was that, if this ordination proceeds, it would not only breach the Constitution and Canons of the Church but fly in the face of the calls for restraint on this issue from the wider Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In a separate letter the Vicars of New Zealand’s 10 largest Anglican Churches have also expressed their own protest at the proposed ordination.

The ordination of practising gay clergy is only a part of the story. In case this is seen as “homophobia” and “gay bashing”, the situation would be exactly the same should the Bishop of Dunedin agree to ordain a man who is living with his mistress, or who is having an affair. Such a person is no more suitable for his practise of sex outside marriage either, hetero or homo making little difference.

The whole of the story has to do with the capitulation of Biblical Christianity to current elements of this postmodern culture. This includes a disregard for Biblical morality, Biblical authority, and a move towards a politically correct inclusiveness that smacks of universalism in religion. As an example of where this revisionist cultural agenda can take us, the recently elected Presiding Bishop to the Episcopal Church in America, Katherine Jefferts Schori, stated in an interview with Robin Young on “Here and Now”, October 18, 2006, the following:

“Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. That is not to say that Muslim’s or Sikhs or Jains come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through human experience — through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.”

Source

The following is an address given by The Rev. Dr. Bob Robinson to the Pre-synod Conference of the Diocese of Christchurch, 31 August 2006.
It states exactly how “Anglican Mainstream” (those doctrinally orthodox believers) view the current situation in the Church of England.
I present it here as I believe it speaks the minds of those of us who are feeling badly betrayed by our Church, often going unheard while being pressured into endless “listening to” of the liberal arguments as though to wear us down into tired agreement. This is Biblical Christianity that, should it become “revised”, will no longer be Biblical Christianity - or Christianity at all. Despite the spin given it by Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, Jesus Himself said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

What Mainstreamers Really Think But Have (Mostly) Been Too Afraid To Say It

“Mainstream Anglicans see this disunity in our Church as the result of a defection from the Gospel of Christ and a capitulation to western culture. Because this is the central issue, endless talking about Anglican identity, unity and distinctiveness misses the point, mostly wastes our time and ignores the real reason for our unhappiness as a denomination.”

WHO ARE WE AS ANGLICANS?
Pre-Synod Conference, 31 August 2006

Kia ora tatou. I'm standing here as some kind of voice for so-called ‘mainstream' Anglicans —
‘mainstream' being the imperfect shorthand for those evangelical, charismatic and other orthodox Anglicans who seem generally to agree with what I'm saying (and using ‘orthodox' doctrinally).

So, to the initial question ‘Who are we as Anglicans?' Mainstreamers give a fairly ho-hum answer to this question of Anglican identity. If they are like me they simply say: Anglicanism arose as the vernacular English way of being Christian. In terms of traditional labels a denomination emerged that was and is Protestant, Catholic and Reformed. In one way our identity is as simple as that. This is a contextual and instrumental understanding of Anglicanism as a vehicle for expressing the Gospel of Christ and implementing the mission of that Gospel in a given cultural setting. That's why mainstreamers see themselves as Christian before Anglican and culturally popularist rather than culturally elitist. They want to be the church of the people; they usually succeed, which is why mainstream churches tend to be well-attended and attract 20 and 30 year olds in ways that other Anglicans others don't.

The reason why we mainstreamers like being Anglican is overwhelmingly a Christian reason: being Anglican enables us to be Gospel- and Christ-centred people in NZ. Anglicanism enables us to be Bible-focussed, community-minded, culturally adaptable, and world-facing. The central defining point is the Gospel — the Kingdom of God message that centres on Christ, that is contained in the Bible and that confronts us and our world with the call to turn to the living God by believing in Christ and to serve Christ in church and world.

Notice that I haven't mentioned those voluntary and secondary commitments that Anglicans also embrace — eg episcopacy and the structural and accountability dimensions as seen in the ‘instruments of unity,' three Tikanga structure etc. These can and sometimes do (though not always) help the good order of the Church. But the essence of the church is defined by its faithfulness to the God-given Gospel of Christ. There is nothing unique about Anglicanism. It is but one of many geographically-derived and authentic ways of being Christian. Our primary identity as Anglicans comes from Scripture and the Gospel of Christ — those divinely given aspects of identity. Note the order: Christian before Anglican.

And this raises another issue: why are we even asking this question about Anglican identity? It is because of the divisions in our Anglican Church — both local and global. These divisions do or should worry all of us and I want to make clear what especially worries mainstream Anglicans. Whether it's the haemorrhaging of an increasing number of members and parishes and (most recently) five dioceses since the American Episcopal General Convention (that was June); or two gay UK Anglican priests (one of them a Dean) getting married (that was last month); or British liberal Anglicans threatening to split from Canterbury (that's this month) we may be facing a civil war that could destroy Anglicanism as we know it.

Mainstream Anglicans see this disunity in our Church as the result of a defection from the Gospel of Christ and a capitulation to western culture. Because this is the central issue, endless talking about Anglican identity, unity and distinctiveness misses the point, mostly wastes our time and ignores the real reason for our unhappiness as a denomination.

The implication of the preliminary papers sent is that if we can somehow muddle through to a better understanding of our identity our wounds will somehow be healed. But for mainstreamers the central issue is not Anglican identity. The central issue has to do with Christian identity and threats to that identity caused by the cultural captivity of parts of the First World Anglican Church.

Where does this revisionist agenda come from? One helpful analysis of recent theology is that of Professor David Ford of Cambridge University whoseThe Modern Theologians1 maps the five ways the recent century church related its message to Western culture:

*———————–*————————*————————*————————*

Repetition Engagement Correlation Accommodation Capitulation

Anglicanism has traditionally assumed one of the three positions on the left. But this map reveals other options seen when our church chooses to accommodate and even capitulate to doctrinal relativism (eg, the Cathedral Altar cloth issue), to moral relativism (as seen in acquiescence to the gay agenda), and to pluralist muddle (thinking that incompatible understandings of the church can and even should coexist — eg at our recent General Synod).

Doctrinal relativism.
The Cathedral altar cloth with its Hindu prayer has upset mainstreamers. Why? [Email me for a detailed and nuanced discussion because the cenral issues are theological and not to do, in the first instance, with artistic freedom of tolerance.] Let me ask two questions:

If we know Christ, why would we even want to pray such an agnostic prayer?

If we believe that Christ is the world's redeemer (and that is his claim at the Last Supper) why would we want to display such a prayer in a Eucharistic setting? This Hindu prayer might suit an altar ‘to an unknown God' — but not at the Eucharist where Jesus so clearly state that He is the new covenant between God and humanity.

The only explanation known to me is a diminished view of Christ and the Eucharist. One of the virtues of Anglicanism is that it has chosen to be doctrinally modest — but this is no excuse for being doctrinally loose, or implicitly denying the uniqueness and finality of Christ.

Moral relativism.
The greatest threats to Anglican identity come from the erosion of our Christian distinctiveness by cultural accommodation. To apply that to the issue of ‘gay rights' in the church: the agenda of Anglican revisionists comes not from the discovery of new Gospel or Biblical values but from a desire to accommodate to culture (in this case, to capitulate to it) with gay-partnered clergy and even one gay-partnered Bishop. To say this is not to be homophobic; almost every mainstream congregation has gay members.

Pluralist muddle and General Synod.
There is not much point in the Episcopal church in the US offering what it calls its “sincerest apology” when it does nothing to undo the damage and pain it has caused in the Anglican world. It is shameful, in the opinion of most mainstreamers, that our General Synod recently passed a motion that, in effect, offers encouragement and latent support for the American Church. Our General Synod needed to rebuke North American Anglicanism's disrespect for the pain and sense of betrayal caused by it behaving simply as it wishes — in a maverick way that signals a smug American cultural superiority. Liberal revisionism is not only deeply troubling to mainstreamers here in NZ and elsewhere. It is deeply offensive to nearly all African, Asian and Latin American Anglicans too. We cannot proudly extol a worldwide Anglican communion and ignore what most of its members believe. There is a future only if Western Anglicanism heeds the words of judgment being spoken against it by the poor and non-white members of our communion. It is disgraceful that General Synod wants us as a church to ignore that by offering tacit support to the American church.

Here in New Zealand we have Bishops with similar revisionist urges to use episcopal office as a ‘prophetic' lever to pry people loose from the incrusted positions of the past — for example in the ordaining of gay-partnered clergy. Most of them seem willing to resist these urges. But when our leaders do such things it's our (mainstream) churches people leave; we suffer. (And discussion should also mention the disastrous ecumenical consequences as well.)

The accommodating liberal agenda doesn't work. Bishop Spong did, of course, diminish his Diocese of Newark by 43% during his time as Bishop there. Did I hear the other day that the Dunedin Diocese has shrunk to 13 stipendiary clergy and that if you withdrew the mainstream parishes (that have ignored or rejected the liberal agenda) that Diocese would implode? Jim Veitch at the national Anglican conference in the early 1990s: “It's liberals who have ruined the church in NZ.” I do realise that my analysis is hurtful because it seems to cast doubts on the Christian profession of some Anglicans. Of course liberals have not completely abandoned the faith; I can see that some of their actions have some continuity with orthodoxy. But to say that the liberal agenda doesn't actually build the church seems visibly and painfully true.

In sum, what we see is the subversion and transformation of Christian belief and practice by the logic of autonomous individualism. The best analysis I have seen is provided by Philip Turner, the former Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale.2 He's writing about ECUSA — the former name of the American Episcopal Church - but what he says applies to us also.

“As the English theologian PT Forsythe once wrote, “If within us we have nothing above us we soon succumb to what is around us.” The — internal life of ECUSA may well lack a transcendent point of reference—one that can serve as a counter-balance to the social forces that play upon it. A certain emptiness at the center is suggested also by an analysis of the theology that currently dominates ECUSA's pulpits. The standard sermon in outline runs something like this: “God is love; God's love is inclusive; God acts in justice to see that everyone is included; we therefore ought to be co-actors and co-creators with God to make the world over in accordance with inclusivity.”3

“Here is the theological projection of a society built upon preference — .. ECUSA's God has become the image of this society. Gone is the notion of divine judgment (save upon those who may wish to exclude someone), gone is the notion of radical conversion, gone is the notion of a way of life that requires dying to self and rising to newness of life in conformity with God's will. In place of the complex God revealed in Christ Jesus, a God of both judgment and mercy, a God whose law is meant to govern human life, we now have a God who is love and inclusion without remainder. The projected God of the liberal tradition is, in the end, no more than an affirmer of preferences.

“Jews have always held that idolatry is the greatest of all sins. In the end, the actions of ECUSA must be traced to idolatry, to the creation of a God made in our own image. — Contrary to the assertions of many liberal Episcopal clergy and bishops, the concern of the bishops from the global South does not stem from the fact that they have not as yet lived through the Enlightenment. It stems rather from a perception that a form of idolatry has infected ECUSA and that this infection has led to forms of gross disobedience that compromise not only Anglican but Christian identity.”

Is there a way forward?
Archbishop David Moxon is calling for a lengthy period of prayerful, careful, respectful re-visiting of the Bible and “with Christ present in the room.” It sounds promising — except for two things.

(1) Mainstreamers have sat through decades of these calls to revisit the issues. But no new Biblical or Gospel facts emerge; it simply seems to be another attempt by liberals to push their revisionist agenda onto the rest of us. The real issue is accommodation to the culture — and decades of trying to justify this from the Bible simply won't work; it's intellectually dishonest. How do I put this politely? Our church is divided. It's not the evangelical, charismatic and other orthodox Anglicans who have caused the division! We're tired of being put under pressure to revise the Gospel — and that's what it feels like to us.

(2) What about doing the investigation “with Christ present in the room”? That too will also meet with a guarded response from mainstreamers given the way in which every recent defection from the Great Tradition tries to coopt Christ. When the Bishop of Los Angeles presided over the union and blessing of two of his gay clergy he began by stating ‘Christ is present here with us.' The same kind of promiscuous ‘Christ-talk' was heard at Gene Robinson's consecration. But the only Christ we actually know is the Christ of Scripture — all the rest is speculation and every attempt to domesticate Christ to serve unbiblical and revisionist agendas collapses for precisely that reason.

And that brings me back to my main point. Anglican identity is primarily Christian identity. Why are we Anglicans? Simply because Anglicanism is one of many good ways of being Christian. The primary identity comes from Scripture and the Gospel of Christ — those divinely given aspects of identity that make us an orthodox church. So, to quote Professor John Webster, “An orthodox church is not just one kind of church — ; it is just the church. — ‘Heterodoxy' is not another way of being the church, any more than a lie is another way of telling the truth.”4 Unless we can find practical ways of safeguarding and extending a vision of dynamic orthodoxy, faithful to Scripture and the great tradition of Christianity, our identity will remain compromised and our future bleak.

That's the blunt summary of what mainstreamers think about Anglican identity. We estimate that these mainstream Anglicans make up between 40 - 60% of practicing Anglican adults in NZ. Let's call them half of our Church. And because they are the younger part this percentage will grow. Of course the mainstream part of the church is not perfect. There are temptations to triumphalism, individualism and ungraciousness. Not all mainstreamers think and act alike; there is quite a diverse range of opinion and ways of doing things. And, as an academic I know that every issue is complex and multi-layered. But in forty years of watching Anglicans in NZ I have never seen these mainstreamers so strong numerically and so well-equipped theologically - and I have never seen them so determined to resist the revisionism that is the root cause of our disunity.

One last point. New Zealand doesn't actually need Anglicanism — quite apart from the fact that New Zealanders don't seem very interested anyway. But what NZ does need is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let me reassure you of the mobility of Kiwi Christians under the age of 40 who will gravitate to — or leave — Anglicanism in direct proportion to the presence of (a) excellent preaching; (b) doctrinal orthodoxy; (c) the quality of relationships and pastoral care. The future of Anglicanism depends upon those priorities — not upon further analysis and dialogue.

Who are we as Anglicans? We are a church called to be Gospel-centred, Christ-centred, biblically-based and doctrinally orthodox. Our future is strong and assured if — and only if — we remain true to that foundation and resist the suicidal urge to build on any other. Because, of course, “There is no other foundation than the one already laid: that foundation is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3.11).

Bob Robinson bobr@netaccess.co.nz
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

May I also commend to you a helpful website: www.latimer.org.nz where recent discussions include: The Implosion of ECUSA; General Synod; Uniting Church Divisions; Hindu Altar Cloth.

1 David F Ford, ‘Introduction to Modern Christian Theology' in The Modern Theologians, edited by David F Ford, second edition (Oxford: Blackwells, 1997), 1-3.

2 From his article, ‘The Episcopal Preference,' First Things, 137 (November 2003), 32f; and also, in expanded and revised form, as: ‘ECUSA's God and the Idols of Liberal Protestantism,' in Ephraim Radner and Philip Turner,The Fate of Communion: The Agony of Anglicanism and the Future of a Global Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 243-51. An earlier but equally devastating critique is: RR Reno, In the Ruins of the Church: Sustaining Faith in an Age of Diminished Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2002).

3 Given the habit of some NZ Deans and Bishops of posting sermons on the web, this analysis is not without significant parallels here as well.

4 At ‘The Future of Anglicanism' Conference, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, 30 June — 5 July 2002.

I did something that I wish I had never done. It made such an unbearable impact on me and has become the substance of nightmares, those all too real for comfort. Just one unwitting mouse click then a distraction that took my eyes away for just a moment. When I looked up I saw in full progress a video clip of an Islamic infidel beheading. A beheading - the neck of a real person being sawn right through with all the writhing and the gore. I wont go on, and nor did the video because I stopped it right away. But not fast enough for the grissly scene to have a deep effect on me as the head came off. This was something that had happened for real. It is something that keeps happening - for real. It is something that simply must be made to stop.

Recently Pope Benedict received a letter, the full text of which can be found here:
Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

I am both troubled by this letter, and heartened by it - two opposed reactions which has me wanting to treat it very cautiously. I will comment on both reactions for others to know what are my concerns.

1. The part that heartens me

An impressive list of significant Muslim intellectual and political figures have put their signatures to this letter - 38 of them in all. These people have now committed themselves to the statements that they have made in the text of the letter. These statements present a less aggressive form of Islam with condemnation for the violence that we are seeing on a daily basis (yes daily - click here and scroll towards the bottom of the page) and by signing their names to this letter they may be held accountable to the statements they make as facts about Islam.

That these people have come together may be the beginning of an authoritative voice of Islam that can moderate the thinking and actions of those who behave outside the claims to the nature of Islam as made in this letter. It may be the beginnings of a movement towards reformation of Islam, something to be greatly encouraged.

2. The part that troubles me

Islam has embedded within it a sanction that permits deception - the principles of al-taqiyya and kitman which allow lying in certain circumstances, one of those being to effect a peace or reconciliation.

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali, one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time, says: “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.” (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

This subject is discussed in detail here by Vernon Richards in his e-book, Islam Undressed.

There are statements in the letter which are not supported consistently within Islam and do not stack up with the reality of current world events, nor with the history of Islam.
~ An example is the issue of abrogation of Surah 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”). The signatories to the letter deny its abrogation whereas many other Islamic scholars quoting the Qur’an on the subject do not. Who is right? Even if this surah is not considered abrogated in some quarters, there are a great many other surah which command violence to non-believers unless they recant their own faith and convert to Islam. This surah becomes practically irrelevant in light of all the others.
~ There is the glaring omission of dhimmitude used as a means of “persuading” non-Muslims to convert to Islam through harsh subjugation laws including penalties such as jizya, the extra taxes levied upon them.
~ The one-sided view of jihad plays down the external warring side supported by the Qur’an and well documented here. Historically Islam is well known for its “bloody borders” and offensive wars.

According to one calculation, Muhammad himself engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. Within a century after the prophet’s death, Muslim armies had reached as far as India in the east and Spain in the west….In the 7th century A.D. Muhammad's Bedouins defeated the Persian and eastern Roman empires, and conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain. This period, referred to as Islam's ‘golden years', is what many Muslims aspire to be restored. The invaders eventually were stopped in the east in 718 at the city walls of Constantinople, and in the west in 732 some 200 miles from Paris. There followed another thousand years of seesaw wars on sea and land before the last Middle Eastern attack on a major European city, Vienna, which was repulsed in 1683. Those who expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam's founding in the 7th century, expect them to jettison core values of their faith - something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history.
Source

It is not proven that Pope Benedict, a learned and reputable scholar himself, made the errors that this letter proposes that he did. We must await the outcome of further dialogue between His Holiness and the signatories of this letter or their representatives. Another view is presented in M.A. Khan’s essay Was the Pope Wrong? and it is worth considering some of the points made there.

My concerns have not yet been addressed by the signatories to this letter. There is still a great deal of ground to cover, and reformation to occur within Islam - if that is possible at all.

The Islamic Agenda is supported by the strategy of Islamicization of Europe published in 1980 by the Islamic Council of Europe, quoted here from the website of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo (International Director of the Barnabas Fund and the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. Dr Sookhdeo holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and was awarded a Doctor of Divinity by Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon for his work in the field of pluralism.)

Europe is undergoing a rapid process of change as Muslims make their presence felt in politics, economics, law, education and the media. While there is a wide range of attitudes amongst Muslims in Europe, with many who are broadly content with the status quo and just want to live their lives peacefully, others are striving deliberately to drive forward the changes. As a result of the efforts of the latter, Europe is gradually being transformed into a society in which Islam takes its place, not just as an equal alongside the many other faith communities, but often as the dominant player. This is not purely, or even primarily, a matter of numbers, but is more a matter of control of the structures of society. It is not happening by chance but is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders.

Though the effects are only now becoming noticeable, the planning was done decades ago. In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe. When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states. The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a “good Muslim” without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam. (M. Ali Kettani “The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions” in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105)
Source

In light of the statement from the Islamic Council of Europe, consider the reported words of Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. In 1998 he addressed a gathering of Muslims in California and urged them not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with non-believers, advising them not to assimilate but to be “open to society without melting (into it)”, keeping mosques open so anyone can learn about Islam. He then went on to say that…”If you choose to live here (in America) … you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam. Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” Five years later he denied saying this, the truth of the report was re-asserted, and Ahmad did not follow up. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, made the same point more positively in 2003, saying that if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, it would be safe to assume that they would want to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, as most Muslims believe that God’s law is superior to man-made law.
Source

There are clearly mixed voices in Islam, and we do not know yet which will prove to be the strongest. The reality that we see before our eyes - the increasing encroachment of Islam into Western civilization with its attempts to engulf and dominate, combined with the agression and bloodshed, and demands for appeasement - will need to be stopped if we are to believe anything at all of the voices from the other side of Islam.

My concern is that it may not be another side at all, but just another “more gentlemanly” surge of Islam through the efforts of its intellectuals to give us hope when that hope is only an illusion.

I would dearly love to see a reformation in Islam whereby the aggressive agenda is dropped in every respect. My response to that letter was as I described - conflicted. If these 38 Muslim scholars and political figures can make a difference by bringing in a more moderate version of Islam and (this is the essential part) behavioural changes throughout the Islamic world, that is certainly what I am hoping will happen. That is indeed to be encouraged. I have shared my reasons for concern and believe I have substantiated them well enough with the links I have provided. They are my concerns whether they are those of others or not. I don’t believe I need justify them any further.

My concern is also for revealing the truth, not for hiding it such that we are not wise to what is reality. Reality is truth; truth is reality - they are pretty closely related if we are speaking of objective truth. Given the background of the reality of world events, the reality of Qur’anic doctrine, the reality of Islam as practiced in Middle Eastern countries - ignoring these things is just plain foolish. Yes, they make me feel cautious. So I shall wait cautiously for what transpires next, hoping that if these 38 gentlemen do have power and influence and authority in Islam, then we should see a radical change of behaviour compared to the atrocities currently committed in the name of Allah. I hope they will prove to have more charisma (and thus the “tipping point”) than the Muslims who whip up the majorities to outrage and acts of barbarism and terrorism.

There must be absolutely no more beheadings and mutilations, no more atrocities, no more persecution, no more offensive acts of barbary and terrorism. Whatever it takes - it must be made to stop. I will be holding those 38 signatories accountable to their letter to the Pope.

While giving a history lesson to around 1500 Catholic theology students the Pope, reading from a 14th century document, quotes the words of Emperor Palaeologos: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Two Muslims responding in outrage storm a Catholic hospital in Somalia and shoot a 65 year old nun 3 times in the back, killing her and then her body guard. Others burn Catholic churches, threaten death and violence towards the Pope, and Islamic clerics say he must step down from office. A hardline cleric, Sheikh Abubakar Hassan Malin, also in Somalia, told worshippers at his mosque to hunt down and kill whoever offended the Prophet Mohammed. The Pope has said in a statement that he was “deeply sorry” for the reaction to his comments, and that the emperor’s words did not reflect how he himself felt. He said the intent of his remarks were to call for a dialogue on the role of religions in modern life.

But Sheikh Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza’s Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, is now calling for holy war against “this little racist” Pope. He rejects the Pope’s stated apologies. “He did not apologize. He said everything but an apology, which proves these are diplomatic acts and not a feeling of being sorry.” Of the Muslim reaction he continues, “We are deeply sorry for these acts that we condemn. But I am sorry that this little racist did not think of the consequences upon the Christians in the Arab world when he insulted our Prophet. It is an open war - the Muslims against all the others.” (Er, deeply sorry for those violent acts but calling for jihad, more violent acts?)

I personally have tremendous regard for Pope Benedict. I like him a lot. I believe he is a Godly man, and in so many ways a Godsend to us all. This whole terrible debacle has saddened me greatly. Muslims and Christians are forever speaking past each other as they have such different mindsets, entirely different worldviews. To me it is unspeakable, unconscionable, outrageous and outlandish, that anyone could go and kill another human being as retaliation for something read aloud from a history book. The reaction surely only goes to prove the truth of the Emperor’s words if Muhammad is their role model as he is claimed to be. But to a Muslim it is a capital offence to say anything at all, repeat anything at all, that maligns Mohammad - unfortunately the truth included. He is to be considered above all criticism. They will defend and avenge his “honour” with the sacrifice of lives if necessary. That is really hard for us to understand, most especially given our knowledge of Mohammad’s life and teachings. We are simply poles apart on this.

It saddens me that there has been so little overt support for Pope Benedict from other western leaders. The west is cowering before militant Islam, vainly hoping that appeasement will lessen the threat and turn it back from its encroachment. Instead we are to apologize for speaking what we believe to be the truth, and as well as that, to make it our own responsibility when others commit crimes in protest of such truth. Muslims will indeed be our conquerors if this is allowed to continue, and what we know as truth will be overturned, replaced with their ideology alien to our culture. How long before a Pope may no longer preach Christ crucified, nor resurrected, as the Qur’an says that never happened? Our dhimmitude will be the death of us.

Why does Pope Benedict seem to be backing down? Is he losing his honesty and courage? Somehow I don’t think so. He is a very learned man, and one of great integrity as well. As a Christian he will want to work very hard for peace - at least give it his very best shot - but not peace at any price. I discern in him a great strength of character as well as love for truth. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors, nor within a person’s heart. He has a very hard job to do and my prayers are certainly with him.

Postscript:
Yashiko Sagamori has written an especially erudite essay entitled Silence of the Sheep in which she asks “What should have been the appropriate response to Pope Benedict XIV after he recklessly quoted a dead Byzantine emperor?” and discusses the responses from the various different groups to Pope Benedict’s use of the quotation from Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1350-1425).

Can you believe what you see?

Objective truth can be hard to find these days. It is no wonder that many folk get fooled into believing the postmodern idea that truth is subjective, that what is true for you may not be true for me because we each experience things from different perspectives and colour everything accordingly. If everything is altered by passing it through the filter of subjective perception, then it can be very hard to know what is the real objective truth - or so the story goes.

Most of us know that our newspaper reporters are likely to put some kind of slant on things even when they are supposedly doing their best to give us the cold hard facts. But they are subject to various pressures - political, cultural, philosophical, and also personal as well. One needs to develop some astute critical thinking skills to avoid being taken in by whichever bias sways the news according to whoever (photographer, reporter, editor, newspaper bosses) and some good eyesight as well.

An example to consider are some photographs from the Israel/Lebanon war zone.

If one is to believe Hezzbollah, without provocation the Israelis targeted and hit a three story building from a town where no missiles were hidden or used. However, if one is to believe the Israelis, over 150 missiles had been fired from Qana, many from directly beside a three story building. The Israelis support their report with video footage showing such launches. But it was not until upwards of eight hours after the Israeli missile attack that the building (presumably from where the rockets were being launched) collapsed. Isn’t that kind of odd? When the building did eventually collapse Hezzbollah invited in the media to photograph the carnage. However, if you follow the timeline and various poses, there is evidence that the objective truth is being distorted. The same few dead children are photographed over and over, being held at different times, in different ways: in short, the photos seem to be carefully staged and repeated in slightly different ways, sometimes for hours on end. Here is a report that identifies some of these different shots and poses. Warning - some of the images are quite disturbing.

Do you believe that smoke may waft into the atmosphere producing repetitive symmetrical patterns? It is said that the camera does not lie, but all of us who use image editing software know full well that the software sure can. Here is another example to demonstrate how a news photographer can distort “cold hard facts” to suit an agenda.

Given that it was the same photographer in both these separate incidences, one who obviously champions the cause of Hezzbollah, we might hope that such cases are few and far between. One would like to hope that is so. This photographer clearly has a bias which needs to be considered before believing anything that he would have you see. The victim in this current Middle Eastern war zone is not just the terrible “collateral damage” on either side, but also the objective truth misrepresented to advance a certain agenda.

The following video clip added 12 August 2006 - a real “must see”.

Photo Fraud in Lebanon

There is a fundamental understanding that exists in Christianity - that God is our Creator, and we are His creatures.
It is God who made us, and He made us in His image.

There is a fundamental quirk of human nature - that we are constantly attempting to turn that fundamental understanding on it’s head, trying to re-create God so that He is our creature made in our own image.

We want God to be as we want Him to be, to have Him obedient to our whims, and have no demand on us for loyalty to His cause but instead, to abide by whatever it is that we want for ourselves.
While God is to love us unconditionally, we say, we in turn consider ourselves able to choose to behave however we like and not fall out of favour with Him. He is to stay in favour with us while we get on with doing as we please.
God is to stay like some ornament on a shelf, there available and accessible but not interfering, performing whatever function when asked of Him, but put back on the shelf when no longer needed - until next time.

However, those who treat their Creator in this fashion are living on borrowed grace, benefitting from having a life to live but wasting it in a psychotic-like state of unreality.
God is our Creator and we are His creatures. It is not actually ourselves who make the rules. We may have some arrogant delusions about having such a right, but in fact reality is otherwise. The truth about God remains the truth about Him regardless.

It is very sad to see what is happening in His church at present. There are some who believe that they can call the shots, can tell God what is right from wrong, can tell Him how it will be done from now on, and can even decide to call Him some other name as His current ones don’t fit their version of Him anymore.

From the Los Angeles Times, an interesting news comment entitled Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins:

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they “repent” of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were “Mother, Child and Womb” and “Rock, Redeemer and Friend.” Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a “Name That Trinity” contest. Entries included “Rock, Scissors and Paper” and “Larry, Curly and Moe.”

Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants “reimagined” God as “Our Maker Sophia” and held a feminist-inspired “milk and honey” ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It’s a Church of What’s Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.

You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God’s name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ’s divinity, to address her priests.

After around 40 years of developing it’s own heyday, liberal theology is now seeing the results of blurred doctrine and discarded morality not just in terms of a demographic decline in church membership, but also in church disintegration such as that which is happening within the Episcopal Church in the USA. According to the writer of the article: When a church doesn’t take itself seriously, neither do its members. When your religion says “whatever” on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it’s a short step to deciding that one of the things you don’t want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

Jesus warned about what happens when we remove ourselves from our source of sustenance, using the metaphor of the vine and the fruit that is produced from it. Jesus, the Word of God, is the true vine and if we remain in Him then we will bear fruit, but apart from Him we cannot. What is more, the gardener - our Creator Father - will remove the dead vine that produces no fruit and discard it, throwing it into the fire to be burnt.

Back to the Los Angeles Times article again:

It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it’s more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.

It doesn’t help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark (”The Rise of Christianity”) and historian Philip Jenkins (”The Next Christendom”) contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents’ commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women’s ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.

Those churches where Biblical morality is not compromised, where the liberal revisionists have not been allowed to dilute Biblical Christianity with postmodern secular and politically correct notions, are the branches of the vine that are bearing fruit. Their teachings remain true to the Word of God, and their faith in Jesus as Lord and Saviour is strong and unshaken.

The arrogance in attempting to re-create the Creator is something I find quite galling. Who are we to tell God how things are to be done? Wo are we to tell Him what is sin and what is not? I am gobsmacked by the nerve people have to regard our Creator in such a way, and even more so, I am deeply saddened when I see how they would turn their backs on a close real relationship with the most magnificent, holy and wonderfully loveliest Being who desires only what is truly good for us - and instead, relate to something of their own creation, an idol of their own imagination. We do not deserve His love for us, but He gives it anyway, asking us only to enjoy Him to the fullest by our obedience to Him in order to be who we were created to be in Him. Those who are starving themselves of an honest and faithful relationship with Him through Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, are now withering and dying, the lesson Jesus taught that is recorded in chapter 15 of John’s Gospel.

An article well worth the read:
Awaiting an Episcopal Revolution - The Rise and Fall of a Church
by Allan Dobras 7/11/2006

The Episcopal Church in the USA has recently elected a new Presiding Bishop. This is the very top job, a position of considerable responsibility and one of considerable influence. This in itself is not an unusual thing. Presiding Bishops are elected every nine years and it was that time again. But what is unusual this time is that the new Presiding Bishop just happens to be a woman.

The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori to this position is a highly contentious move that has had a huge impact for the entire Anglican Communion world-wide. It is seen as an occasion of great sadness for all who care about the unity of Christians, and as the pathway to heresy by those who adhere to a conservative and traditional understanding of Holy Scripture.

In the mid-seventies the Episcopal Church unilaterally decided to ordain women to the priesthood, and since then the Church of England has followed suit. However, the more recent commotion in the global Anglican Communion was sparked by the ordination of Gene Robinson, a practicing gay priest, as bishop of New Hampshire, USA. From a conservative and traditional theological position, the ordination of women, and the ordination of practising homosexuals, is not supported by Scripture. Women have a different kind of ministry, not one of headship that is the perogative of men. When Mother Theresa was once asked for her view on the ordination of women priests, she was quite dismissive of the idea, saying simply “women have other things to do.” But this is a very unpopular position in today’s world where feminism has influenced our thinking considerably, and the Apostle Paul (by whose apostolic authority women were forbidden in such roles, a reflection of his understanding of God’s purpose in the wide-reaching Creation story) has become regarded as the penultimate misogynist worthy only of contempt for his obvious chauvinism. That is a secular and cultural view, but not a Biblical view. And when it comes to practising homosexuals, again the secular and cultural view reigns over the Word of God where homosexuality is clearly a sin, and to live in constant unrepentant defiance of His Word on this matter is contrary to pursuit of a holy lifestyle befitting of ordained clergy.

Some months ago the Lambeth Commission on Communion issued the Windsor Report which proposed that the Episcopal Church apologize to the Anglican Communion for difficulties caused by the election of Gene Robinson and that a moratorium be declared on ordaining gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions. Bishop Schori was highly critical of the Windsor Report, and her election is a decisive repudiation of its recommendations. She is an unequivocal supporter of Gene Robinson and of the blessing of same-sex unions. Bishop Schori is also reported to be a friend and strong supporter of the retired Bishop John Spong, perhaps the most leftist of all Episcopal bishops, and who has long agitated against core doctrines of historic Christianity such as the inspiration of Scripture and the divinity of Christ.

Following her election as the new Presiding Bishop, Dr Schori signalled her feminist credentials in a sermon that drew on the writings of the 14th-century Julian of Norwich. She said: “Mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.” Her sermon was defended by Liberals in Britain and America as being in a long tradition of writings by women theologians that use the metaphor of Jesus as mother.

The transcript of Bishop Schori’s homily provides some context:

Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation — and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.

This idea of a “Mother Jesus” giving birth to creation is an example of gynecological theology. This is opposed by Biblical Christianity as definitely un-Scriptural. Creation is not birthed from some kind of divine womb. It is spoken into being by a divine Word. We are not the children of Jesus, not without even more laxity of interpretation, but children of God the Father whose Son is Jesus, our Lord and Saviour.

The likely direction that the Episcopal Church will be led by this new Presiding Bishop is well away from Biblical Christianity, and when the Biblical truths are revised and distorted, what we have is no longer Christianity but some other pseudo-Christian aberration instead. Those who are unhappy with this are also placed in the position of being accused increasingly of intolerance and bigotry. As the secular and cultural thought fashions redefine theology, fuelled by the various political activist “rights” movements, soon it will become “hate speech” and “unlawful discrimination” to repeat Biblical truths. Already those who believe God has called homosexuality a sin are being wrongfully described as “homophobic”. I wonder how much longer before it is insisted that we accept “as Gospel” only those Bible translations that have been made “gender neutral”… and whatever else that can be dreamed up to appeal to the politically correct postmodern liberal thinkers of this age.

By whose authority will these changes be declared valid? God has already spoken - His Word is already written. So often it seems to me that many have tipped everything totally upside down and need hear the reminder - God is the Creator, and we are His creatures. We have no authority to re-create God and make Him our creature, in our own likeness. To get this the wrong way around is nothing less than appallingly arrogant, and utterly foolish and sinful idolatry.

The following is part of a clear statement from a traditional Biblical perspective regarding homosexuality among members of the Christian Church, as expressed by the 114th Annual Meeting of the Baptist General Conference, June 27, 1992.
I believe it “hits the nail on the head” regarding the unsuitability of practising homosexuals in the ordained ministry of the Church.

Since beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, like beliefs about the sinfulness of lying, stealing, murder, greed, etc., are an essential part of our commitment to the supreme authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and conduct,

and since a person who believes that lying, stealing, murder or greed are Biblically acceptable lifestyles would not and should not be deemed qualified to serve in the leadership of our Conference, or teach in its educational institutions, or serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference churches, or as principals or teachers of all church-sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference,

therefore we affirm that, in the same way, those who believe that homosexual behavior is a Biblically acceptable lifestyle are not qualified to serve in the leadership of the Conference, or to teach in its educational institutions, or to serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference Churches, or as principals or teachers of all church sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference.

To read the entire statement on this subject, click on Source

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem offers the most complete and extensive refutation of the egalitarian position. All of the authors in this book are well-established scholars, and each chapter provides a book's worth of insight. This on-line book can be downloaded in PDF version from the site you are taken to by clicking on the book title above.

So Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, has been “terminated” and “eliminated”. This Muslim so devoted to his cause committed the most evil deeds during his short life time, and was responsible for the torture and murders of thousands of people. He will be missed alright, and gratefully so by a great many more thousands and thousands who want the wings of Islam severely clipped and their criminals receiving the justice they deserve. My own reaction was a sense of great relief, but tinged with a surprising sadness as well. I heard the cheers of those delighted by the success of the raid, but I could feel no joy in the deed. Yes, it is certainly “good riddance” and the world will be much better off without him. Unfortunately, there are still more of the same to take his place, so the situation continues although this may cripple their cause for a while. I heard how this man will now be enjoying his 72 virgins and houris in Paradise, or else finding out that he really did “back the wrong horse” having been successfully duped through his mind-numbing brain-washing beliefs. And that is the source of my twinges of sadness - that he was someone who backed the wrong horse, followed the wrong leader, worshipped a false god, and was severely deceived. Now he is paying the price, and the price is eternal.

William Lane Craig, Christian philosopher and apologist, in the first chapter of his book titled Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, looks at how we can know that Christianity is true. In discussing faith and reason, he considers the rational and evidential arguments of reason, then regarding faith turns his attention to the work of God through the Holy Spirit. For the believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the inner witness of God’s Spirit provides the assurance of the truths to which are testified. The believer knows the truth by God’s Spirit. Those who do not believe do not have such an experience, and it will not become theirs until such a time that they do (if they choose to) believe. But the work of God’s Spirit is different when it comes to the unbeliever. Jesus describes this work of the Holy Spirit in John 16:7-11.

7 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10 in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Would someone like al-Zarqawi ever have been subjected to any promptings of God’s Spirit? Would he ever have been convicted of his own sin, of God’s righteousness, and of his own condemnation before God? Did this happen and he chose to ignore it? Is this true of any Muslim at all? After all, they do make claim to know God (whom they call Allah) and to an understanding of what Allah wants them to do, and they lay claim to a sharing of Jesus as a prophet although not the Messiah.

The problem is that very little of what is written in the Qur’an actually gives a view of God as known to Christians, and their prophet ‘Isa (whom they claim to be Jesus) is nothing like the Jesus of the New Testament, the historical Jesus whose life, death, resurrection and teachings are recorded in the Gospels. Their Allah does not have a Holy Spirit - he is not our triune God. Would a man’s conscience alone be enough to tell him that certain things - scheming to murder, torture, beheadings, etc - are the wrong way to act? The Qur’an says it is the right way to treat the infidel and bring about our dhimmitude and eventual submission to Allah, or else death. I wonder if al-Zarqawi, in his prayers to Allah or thoughts about his Islamic faith ever received a niggle of conscience, a thought that something was wrong, that so much death and destruction could ever be right? I don’t know the answer to that.

All I can hope for is God’s justice on his soul. Many are ready to condemn him to rot in hell for all his evil deeds. How vindictive we can all be when someone like him is destroyed. This man was deceived, badly deceived, and he bought into the deception with one huge commitment to his Islamic faith, maybe tempered by whatever worldly rewards were offered as well. That has been devastating for many, and gives us just cause to fight against such evil. Our fight must go on but it is not merely between populations on this planet, but even more importantly, it is a spiritual one also.

Well, have you read it yet? Or are you off to see the movie first? Or does all the hype simply bore and put you off?

Having first read several rebuttals, I decided that I better read the book as well - Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”, that is. I’m one of those people who like reading from back to front, reassuring myself that the end is worth the start and whatever goes on in between. So it was not out of character for me to read those rebuttals first. Then I would be more aware of the errors being put forward as facts and thus keep my head on my shoulders and my feet on the ground. With my orientation secured, I could then settle down to a good read knowing I have already seen through the final layer of whatever mystery there may be to figure throughout the story line. And despite a rather silly plot overall, it is a good read - along with John Grisham and Tom Clancy and similar.

The big thing to remember - this book is only a novel.

The novel features an opening page entitled “Fact,” which states: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” This is the first piece of fiction. It is like that saying “all generalizations are false including this one” as the book is a novel and while some aspects of novels are factual, like people having arms and legs and driving cars on roads and so on, the whole thing didn’t actually in reality happen at all. For a real fact, consider this: despite it claiming that all descriptions of artwork in this novel are accurate, it says that Leonardo da Vinci’s “The Virgin of the Rocks” (which in the Louvre) is “a five-foot-tall canvas” yet it is actually six-and-a-half feet in height. So Dan Brown’s book does not pass the simple encyclopaedia test - or the Google test, if you like. But is this just a book writer’s version of poetic licence? I would be willing to make allowances except for that opening statement making claims of accuracy, and then he goes on to make even more serious errors - that prior to the Council of Nicaea no one believed that Jesus was divine, that the Catholic Church burned 5 million women at the stake in the medieval era and that all of Christianity’s major beliefs have been stolen from pagan religions. Well, that just goes to prove his work really is only fiction, including his statement of “fact” that begins the confusion right at the start.

The Catholic Church is upset with this book and with the movie, wanting it banned. Dan Brown certainly does show an anti-Catholic bias, and many Christians of all denominations are protesting about the vilification of Jesus and the representation as fact of a great many lies that contradict Christian truth. Even Muslims in India are offering to help their Christian “brothers” protest this attack on their “common religious belief”. Although this sudden affinity sounds wonderful, I strongly suspect ulterior motives as Muslims definitely do not consider Christians to be their “brothers” any more than they share the Christian belief that Jesus is the Messiah, nor many other things about Jesus. However, they certainly do have a loathing of prophets being maligned in any way - as witnessed by the furore over the Muhammad cartoons.

This brings up the whole freedom of speech issue again. If we want freedom of speech, then that includes the freedom to criticize personal belief systems - and if we allow criticism of one faith, then to be consistent we must be prepared to allow criticism of all faiths. Otherwise we allow criticism of no faiths, and that is our freedom fully curtailed in such matters. I personally do not want that to happen as it stops us being rational and sensible in seeking the truth. We must be able to critically examine all possible evidence and ask questions to verify facts. Not to do so puts ourselves at risk of confusing our entire reality.

So to ban the book or the movie is not the way I would want to go. As a Christian, I do not particularly like Jesus being subjected to such silly rumours, but then He is much bigger than rumours and they will eventually go the same way as all other deception - destroyed by the ultimate Truth (yep, a Christian belief). To ban the book or movie simply invites suspicion as though the Church really does have something to hide. And it treats us all paternalistically like children, not old enough to know things or think for ourselves, and keeps us at junior Sunday School level inhibiting intellectual and spiritual growth.

But I do have one message of warning. To read the book or see the movie, and not go on to examine the issues critically, but to believe as fact something without accurate reliable evidence, is plain foolish and silly. I am not one of those Christians who thinks that having faith means throwing intelligence and facts to the wind to believe just whatever. Having faith is far from contradictory to a critical examination of evidence with a rational mind. The only concern I have regarding this book or movie is that people are far too willing to believe something without checking it out, and in that way deceive themselves as to what is the truth.

Bart Ehrman, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC and author of “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scriptures and the Faiths We Never Knew” (which examines how and why certain texts did or didn’t make it into the New Testament) has written a rebuttal which is published as a book entitled “Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine“.

Here are some points that he makes in his book:

Some Factual Errors in The Da Vinci Code

1. Jesus’ life was decidedly not “recorded by thousands of followers across the land.” He didn’t even have thousands of followers, let alone literate ones (p. 231).

2. It’s not true that eighty Gospels “were considered for the New Testament” (p. 231). This makes it sound like there was a contest, entered by mail…

3. It’s absolutely not true that Jesus was not considered divine until the Council of Nicea, that before that he was considered merely as “a mortal prophet” (p. 233). The vast majority of Christians by the early fourth century acknowledged him as divine. (Some thought he was so divine he wasn’t even human!)

4. Constantine did not commission a “new Bible “that omitted references to Jesus’ human traits (p. 234). For one thing, he didn’t commission a new Bible at all. For another thing, the books that did get included are chock-full of references to his human traits (he gets hungry, tired, angry; he gets upset; he bleeds, he dies…).

5. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not “found in the 1950s” (p. 234). It was 1947. And the Nag Hammadi documents do not tell the Grail story at all, nor do they emphasize Jesus’ human traits. Quite the contrary.

6. “Jewish decorum” in no way forbade “a Jewish man to be unmarried” (p. 245). In fact, most of the community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls were male unmarried celibates.

7. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not among “the earliest Christian records” (p. 245). They are Jewish, with nothing Christian in them.

8. We have no idea about the lineage of Mary Magdalene; nothing connects her with the “house of Benjamin.” And even if she were, this wouldn’t make her a descendant of David (p. 248).

9. Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the crucifixion? That’s a good one (p. 255).

10. The Q document is not a surviving source hid by the Vatican, nor is it a book allegedly written by Jesus himself. It’s a hypothetical document that scholars have posited as having been available to Matthew and Luke, principally a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Roman Catholic scholars think the same of it as non-Catholics there’s nothing secretive about it (p. 256).

An excellent website with information to debunk the Da Vinci Code myths is James Holding’s Tektonics Apologetics Ministries, in particular his paper here.

J.P. Holding offers the following notes for a flyer:

What's wrong with The Da Vinci Code?

It's only fiction. What's the big deal?
The author (Dan Brown) does not think he is reporting fiction. On a June 9, 2003 interview on the Today show Brown said that it was his goal to “challenge certain long-held beliefs or truths about religion.” So he is obviously interested in persuading readers to a certain point of view.

Works of fiction are very capable of changing people's minds about facts. In the Civil War era, the book Uncle Tom's Cabin was instrumental in getting Americans to reject slavery, even though it was a work of fiction. The author of that book, Harriet Beecher Stowe, defended her book's accuracy when critics attacked it. Why won't Dan Brown defend his book from critics, if he really thinks it is worthy of challenging “long-held beliefs or truths”?

What's wrong with it? The Da Vinci Code is filled with errors of fact on nearly every subject it touches. Here are some samples:

Jesus:
The book says that Jesus had “thousands” of followers who recorded his life's story, and that more than eighty gospels were produced. This is a practically an impossibility to begin with, because some 90 to 95 percent of people who lived at the time of Jesus could not read or write. However, the number of Gospels written over time by various parties (80) is inflated. No more than 50 such documents are known, many of them just by a title, and those otherwise known as full documents are often not properly “gospels” in form (in other words, they are not in the format of biographies as they were written in the first century, which the Gospels of the New Testament are). They are also certifiably written much later than the canonical four Gospels, and are not regarded as credible sources for the life of Jesus.

Constantine:
The book says that Constantine “collated” the New Testament collection of books. Constantine in fact had nothing to do with the canon; the formal declaration of the canon occurred at a council that took place after Constantine's death, and prior to this, consensus among the leaders in the church was the determining factor in what books were considered authoritative.

Mithra:
The book claims that this ancient deity was a mirror image of the figure of Jesus: That he had been called the Son of God and the Light of the World — was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. All of these claims are false, and are unknown to scholars who study Mithra. Mithra never died himself but was acclaimed for killing a cosmic bull (of the constellation Taurus).

The Council of Nicea:
Contrary to the book, this Council did not decide that Jesus was divinity and not a mortal man. Both sides in this Council agreed that Jesus was divinity. The question at hand was whether Jesus was a created deity or an eternal deity.

Leonardo da Vinci:
There is no evidence that da Vinci was a “nature worshipper” as Brown claims; he did many sketches of nature, but none of them had religious elements. Brown depicts Leonardo as being into the “darker arts”; in fact Leonardo was severely critical of the occult and pseudo-sciences and only gave some respect to alchemy where it came closer to being chemistry. He did not, contrary to Brown, believe he could turn lead into gold. He did not design torture devices as Brown says, though he did design some weapons of war.

The Mona Lisa:
Brown claims that the painting was named by da Vinci to indicate a secret code made of an anagram for the Egyptian deities Amon and Isis. But the painting was not called “Mona Lisa” by da Vinci. In his time it was called “La Gioconda”. It is also not, as Brown indicates, a version of da Vinci dressed as a women, but the wife of a local merchant, as records of the time indicate.

Everything Else:
It would take several pages to list all of Brown's errors, but here are a few others:

Brown often refers to the “Vatican” as though it were synonymous with the Catholic Church. He refers to Constantine creating a “new Vatican power base.” The Vatican as such did not exist until the 14th century as the Pope's residence; in Constantine's time it was still a swamp.

Brown says that Pope Clement V burned Templar knights and threw their ashes into the Tiber River. It was King Philip who burned the knights, and Clement could not have had their ashes tossed in the Tiber River (in Rome) even if he had burned them, because the Popes resided in Avignon (France) at the time; either the Tiber was diverted hundreds of miles, or Clement had a good throwing arm.

Brown applies the “Divine Proportion” to the population of beehives. The author of this commentary spoke with several beekeepers, all of whom scoffed at this idea. The ratio of male to female bees in a hive is not 1.618 to 1. A hive is usually at least 95% female. One beekeeper said that a hive with the proportions Brown describes would be dead within a few days, since females do all the real hive work. Perhaps some species of bee comes close to having the proportions Brown describes at some time, but it is clearly not a bee universal.

I personally enjoyed Dan Brown’s book and I intend to see the movie as well. But I do recommend that folks also read a scholarly rebuttal or two - or else simply regard it as fiction and take nothing more out of it than they would any other cracking good novel.

Added 20 May…

Some more resources for those interested in facts more so than fiction:

Dismantling The Da Vinci Code by Sandra Miesel.

The Da Vinci crock by Laura Miller ~ “A fascinating conspiracy about Jesus transformed the cheesy thriller, “The Da Vinci Code,” into a phenomenal bestseller. Too bad it comes from “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” a masterpiece of bogus history”.

The Da Vinci Code: Of Magdalene, Gnostics, the Goddess and the Grail by Leadership University Editor/Webmaster, Byron Barlowe.

The Da Vinci Code: The facts behind the fiction by Amy Welborn.

The Da Vinci Code - Fiction Based On Fiction by Jennifer Rast of Contender Ministries.

THE DA VINCI CODE Author Roundtable ~ Question: Which historical errors concern you the most?

The Da Vinci Code Cracks by Greg Koukl

Jesus Christ as God and the Trinity Was Not Invented Until the Fourth Century? by Rich Deem ~ “One of the most commonly held atheistic myths is that Christianity as we know it today was not invented until the fourth century, after the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The book, and soon to be released movie, The Da Vinci Code, makes this very claim (among other very bizarre assertions).”
This website provides authoritative information to debunk this myth and others.

The Da Vinci Dialogue ~ News Tracker
A chronological list of news links related to reactions regarding the book and movie.

This is the church that John found out in the country on his travels one day, and I am glad he stopped to take a picture. There is a simple but gracious appeal of this little church that contrasts so sharply with all the current day happenings in the troubled Anglican communion. It represents to me how I would like my faith to be - simple and honest, clean and uncluttered, devoid of the complexities of theological debate fostered by heresies that ravage the pure Gospel message.

The essential message of the Gospel is indeed quite simple. It is such that even a child can recognize the truth of it, and understand what is required. That we have done wrong things at times, and failed to live up to the kind of life that God would have us live, is an honest appraisal of ourselves. The bad news is that we cannot be faultless by our own efforts, and that we will all die one day and cannot change that situation. That is not too hard to believe. The Good News is clear and simple. I would wish that all else was so clear and simple, but where you have people, there you have complexity - and within the Church is no exception.

Today in San Francisco the Episcopal Church is electing a bishop for California.

Lesbian priest who could split the Anglican Church

It is not an election that would normally attract world attention, but when a few hundred Christians gather to choose a new Episcopal Bishop of California today, millions around the globe will be watching.
The reason is simple. Three of the seven candidates are gay or lesbian, and live openly with their same-sex partners. If one of them wins, the victory could well fracture the Episcopal Church in America and trigger a schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion to which it belongs.

What a long way such events have come from the kind of faith that is represented by the image of John’s little church. The problem is largely one of apostacy to the secular values of today’s postmodern era, they being upheld by liberal theologians whose revisionist view of Scripture (and Church Tradition also) has permitted them to ignore the fact that sexual immorality is a sin and that authority is denied women to be ordained bishops. Yes, I hold to the conservative position which believes in moral absolutes and upholds objective Biblical truth. To me the notion of a lesbian bishop makes a total mockery of both God and the Christian faith. It is the way of those who have accepted the postmodern worldview over and above the Christian worldview that is based on God’s Word. It is sad to see this in the world, but even sadder to see it in the heart of the Church itself. I sincerely hope the San Francisco church remembers God’s Word in it’s simple and gracious, objective and pure truth, and votes accordingly.

Romans 12:

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Islam stops at the church door

{clip} … Church leaders have decided there is no place for the call to prayer, known as The Adhan, in St Paul’s Church in Paraparaumu.

But though The Adhan cannot be sung, “in a spirit of generosity and reconciliation” a recording of it will be played in the church foyer to cover the choir’s silence.

The 110 members of the combined Kapiti Chorale and Kapiti Chamber Choir are scheduled to perform The Armed Man: A Mass for Peace in the church this weekend.

The composition also includes texts from the Koran and the Hindu Mahabharata, but the church has not asked for them to banned.

Archdeacon Perris said:
“For some people the idea that another faith’s statement of belief be proclaimed inside a consecrated Christian church building is offensive. Other people hold totally opposite views. We could not ignore people coming to us, including choir members, voicing concern that it was contrary to their beliefs that a declaration of Islamic faith should be proclaimed inside our sacred space.”

Mohammad Amir, Wellington Muslim community religious adviser said:
“The nature of The Adhan is that the music does not go with it.”
… but that there was no reason The Adhan could not be performed inside an Anglican church - just that it was inappropriate for it to be accompanied by music.

I don’t feel entirely comfortable about having other religions creep into Church this way. I really do wonder why the Church should be using texts from other religions. There are plenty in Scripture to cover every situation that I can imagine.
But then, what about secular texts such as inspirational poetry? Some of that is very Christian in flavour.
Oh, and some of those hymns that get sung do have rather dubious words: “And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England’s mountains green? And was the holy Lamb of God on England’s pleasant pastures seen? …” (Hymn #578, BCP - “Jerusalem“)
Why allow heterodox hymns and maybe not orthodox poems? It is all just a little tricky, I guess.

I am glad that Archdeacon Perris took a stand. Knowing what I do about Islam, I think I would have taken an even stronger stand. Rather than confuse the Islamic Allah with our triune God, I would prefer to have the Adhan reserved for use in mosques where the call to prayer to Allah is not confused with prayer to Our Father God. Allah and the Judeo-Christian God are definitely not one-and-the-same, their characters being entirely different in too many respects.

Mr Amir can speak only for Islam when he says that the Adhan can be performed inside an Anglican Church - and I am perfectly happy to trust that was all he intended by his words. The Church of England needs to make the ruling on that, and I have no idea if it has or not, or what such a ruling would be. I hope such a ruling would support the decision made by Archdeacon Perris, but knowing the strong liberal voice undermining Christianity in the Church of England at present, I could not be at all confident of that.

Reading the Letters to the Editor of Wellington’s “Dominion Post” daily newspaper I am noticing an interesting phenomenon. On the subject of Islam, those letters signed by an Islamic sounding name are all for promoting the false idea that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, whereas those letters signed by European sounding names are refuting such nonsense and pointing out the reality instead. The latter have generally become better informed than those whom one would hope might know a little more about the religion they supposedly practice. It is hugely disappointing that Muslims do not acknowledge what is written in their Qur’ans and stop treating the rest of us as ignoramuses. It is very obvious to most that all through history Islam has had bloody borders, and that today terrorism is still delivered largely by Muslim hands. If anyone has any doubts about that and would like to make some comparisons, then check out the bald facts presented by the Islam: The Religion of Peace website.

However, it is apparently not obvious to everyone yet, especially our leaders, as the letter I read in yesterday’s newspaper, signed by someone with an Islamic sounding name, quoted none other than Tony Blair from an interview with Newsweek back in December 2001. Back then Mr Blair is quoted as saying “True Islam is immensely tolerant and open. Fundamentalism in Islam is no different from the Protestants who go on the streets of Belfast and shoot a Catholic, any Catholic. We’ve all had our fundamentalists.” Of course some water has flowed under the bridge since then, and the Protestants and Catholics have stopped shooting each other in Belfast, but nothing has changed regarding what is written in the Qur’an about slaughtering infidels to further the agenda of Islamic domination and universal global submission to Allah. We have since been told that Mr Blair has a copy of the Qur’an for bedtime reading, and that he has read it cover-to-cover twice over now. What is not quite so well known is that reading the Qur’an from cover-to-cover can leave you very uninformed about Islam unless you also know the chronological order in which Qur’anic surahs (chapters) were written and therefore which ones will negate contradictory earlier ones. The surahs of the Qur’an are not presented chronologically but in order of their relative lengths instead. Mr Blair has so far given no indication at all that he understands that fact, nor the results of applying that fact (nasikh - the abrogation of earlier surahs by contradictory later ones) in order to correctly understand the message of Islam.

The letter also quoted US President George W. Bush as saying: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” This apparently comes from somewhere on the official White House website. Clearly Mr Bush has not been properly informed either - or else he is engaging in a little taqiyya of his own - either diplomacy, cunning or outright cowardly appeasement.

The letter finishes with it’s final sentence as follows: “Anybody who doubts the integrity of Islam shouldn’t prove their own intolerance by judging something they don’t understand.”

Oh boy, now that is rich! It just so happens that maybe we who “doubt the integrity of Islam” have extremely good reason to do so, and that not only the word “intolerance” is used here according to the postmodern language revisionist’s devious definition of it’s meaning, but that we also understand far more than the writer is prepared to acknowledge. We understand the writer either does not know his own religion, or if he does, that he doesn’t want us to understand it truthfully either.

There are two sites out there on the Internet that I would like to make special mention of here, one a new forum to highlight the activities and concerns of Christian missionaries everywhere and anywhere, and the other a cartoon blog which I feel deserves a plug because of the way it uses humour as the medium for the message. There are links to both of these websites over to the left on the sidebar.

Missions ConneXion was launched last week after John got himself “slapped upside the head” (as he tells the story) during a recent church missions adventure and was told to get on with it. The site looks good and has had a great first few days in terms of traffic and number of countries represented by the hits it has had. Do pay a visit and see what you think.

The Cartoon Blog of Dave Walker (whose self-portrait you see here) uses his own art work to illustrate his comments on a number of things, some of them church related, others of them just basically “life itself” related. He has a great appreciation of the mundane, ordinary and simple, and a great way of highlighting those things just as they are but with a touch of humour and tinge of poignancy thrown in for good measure. Sometimes he reminds me of the words of Ecclesiastes 3, the sense that everything is meaningless unless God is in it.
Dave, I think you do a great job and I certainly enjoy your work.

And now Dave has just launched his new website called We Blog Cartoons which offers some free cartoons for your blog. Here are three of them:

This is just sickening!

The only heartening thing was that the folks I spoke with about it today all said it was *that rude word pertaining to excrement* and asked who did they think they were kidding?
The trouble is, they were trying to kid everyone. They… I really mean him; the president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, Mr Javed Khan.

The Dominion Post newspaper yesterday morning did a large full-page feature “Debunking the Myths” regarding Islam. Now if any Kiwis reading this Journal have also just read this feature, please be warned that most of it is a spin-doctoring account that debunks the truth and perpetuates the dangerous myth that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. The article is peppered with outright lies. To someone who does know the truth about Islam, I was utterly dismayed that this piece of writing was published. Doesn’t our newspaper’s editor know anything - anything? This piece of writing flies right in the face of hard factual evidence quite to the contrary. I will mention some of the lies that it told…

1. “The most negative and damaging stereotype that some people hold is that Muslims are terrorists and a security threat to the countries in which they live… These atrocities have absolutely no sanction in Islam, and there is never a justification in our religion for taking innocent lives.
It is galling that militant extremists have hijacked the name of Islam and used it as a cover for their grotesque actions. They have exploited a twisted notion of religion to recruit those who are victims of oppression, inequality and exploitation.”

Yes, it is a very negative and damaging “stereotype” but it is absolutely true that it is Muslims who have perpetrated terrorist acts in the name of Islam, Allah, and jihad following the instructions that are found very clearly written in the Qur’an. There is no “interpretation” required of the verses in the Qur’an which set out in no uncertain terms how Muslims are to behave towards non-Muslims in the name of Islam, Allah and jihad. This is no “hijacking” of Islam - this is what the real Islam is about, as defined by the Qur’an. The Qur’an absolutely does sanction these atrocities and how one defines “innocent” has to be in accordance with Islam - the infidel are not innocent until they submit to Allah.

2. “Let me be clear about this: Islam does not preach violence.”

There are no less than 149 overt surahs in the Qur’an that unequivocally preach violence toward the infidel. To claim that Islam does not preach violence is an absolute denial of fact. It is an out-and-out lie. Please see my page “Just what is it about Islam?” for references and links to credible supporting evidence of this fact.

3. “Islam is a religion that espouses peace.”

Islam defines “peace” as being that state when universal submission to Allah has been achieved. This is the kind of “peace” that Islam espouses. It is not peace as most of the rest of us understand it. There will be no peace until this Islamic agenda has been achieved. Quoting my friend, Mark Alexander… “Muslims believe that Islam is the perfection of religion for man for all time. They call it ad deen al kamal, the perfect religion. People, in their eyes, who have not yet submitted to the will of Allah, are in a state of pre-Islamic chaos, a state known to them as Jahiliyyah! To Muslims, all Muslims, the whole world is classified in two parts: that part of the world which has submitted, and is therefore in the Islamic state, known as Dar al Islam, and that part of the world which has yet to submit, and is therefore in a pre-Islamic, chaotic, jahiliyyic state, known as Dar al Harb, or the House of War!”
Peace comes about only when the entire world has submitted to Allah.
The Islamic concept of peace.

4. “Another common stereotype is that Muslims don’t integrate into NZ society, and that we are opposed to Western values.”

In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe issued guidelines for Muslims living in predominantly non-Muslim countries and made clear statements of how they were to conduct themselves. To read a copy of this statement please refer to my dedicated page on Islam as mentioned above. The extent to which Muslims in NZ have integrated may be variable, and it is true that they are behaving peaceably and contributing skills and labour in a way that does not set them apart from the rest of the population. However, it cannot be forgotten that Islam proposes a strategy based on the principle of taqiyya - or holy hypocrisy - which keeps agendas well hidden and has it’s people living in such a way that does not arouse suspicion. This entire feature article may well be an example of that! Western values include government by democracy. Islam is a totalitarian ideology that does not separate politics and religion, and it rules as a theocracy - from the word of Allah (the Qur’an) down to the people. This major fundamental difference immediately puts it at variance with Western values that include the freedoms we value so dearly.

The rest of the article gave answers to ten most commonly asked questions about Islam. Again, the answers showed evidence of taqiyya, an effort to make the truth palatable to Westerners.

1. Muslims believe in God - they call Him by the Arabic name “Allah”.

They call him Allah but his resemblance to the Creator Father God of the Jews and Christians is seriously deficient. There is a list of attributes where many are seen to reflect “the God of Abraham” who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, but in terms of character, Allah is a totally different being to God as we know our deity. In pre-Islamic times, Allah was the moon god who had three daughters, a supreme god but one of a pantheistic bunch of them. Muhammad cleverly used “Allah” to convince the Arabs that they were still worshipping one of their own gods, but he spruced him up (removing the three daughters and elevating him to Creator status) as an attempt to convince the Jews and Christians that he was talking about their God, the God of Moses and Abraham, also. The Jews saw through this, as did the Christians, and refused to be taken in by this con. Allah is not a personal god, and he is definitely not (in his Islamic form) a father. To call him such is, to Muslims, nothing short of blasphemy. Therefore many Christians would call him a false god and an idol, some even say the anti-Christ. At very least, Allah is a serious misrepresentation of God, a skewed perception, one distorted by the errant fantasies of Muhammad.

2. Muslims believe in the prophets - Moses, Abraham, John the Baptist, and Jesus.

But what they believe about them is something quite else. There are a number of significant discrepencies between the Qur’anic version of the lives of these people, and that recorded in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. They believe that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, whom Abraham went to sacrifice. They do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God (Allah not being a father), nor that He was crucified on the cross, nor that He was resurrected - the all-important fundamental beliefs of Christianity. They claim that someone who just looked like Jesus was crucified instead. Muslims also believe that the Jews and Christians distorted and rewrote the Scriptures, and that God changed Jews into pigs and apes.

3. Muslims see Muhammad as their role model for how they are to live their own lives.

But the behaviour of Muhammad towards others, as described in the aHadith and as indicated in the Qur’an, is absolutely terrifying to most people - this is nightmare territory.

4. The Qur’an was reported not to condone terrorism - that terrorism is a perversion of Islam.

As mentioned earlier, this could not be further from the truth and besides the 149 overt surahs commanding torture and slaughter of the infidel - submission to Allah by way of the sword - this is not a perversion of Islam but the only possible meaning that can be derived from the words of the Qur’an.

5. Within Islam equal rights are given to all human beings, both male and female.

Completely untrue. Women are considered deficient in intelligence and it takes the witness of two of them to equal the witness of one man. Allah has instructed men to abuse their wives verbally, emotionally and physically if they do not obey them. A female inherits only half of a male's portion. For more examples of how Islam regards women: The Veil of Equality and Justice. Islam regards all non-Muslims as “dhimmies” or second-class citizens and they must pay an extra tax intended to subjugate them, and they are not afforded any rights and privileges that Muslims will have in an Islamic society. This is intended to humiliate them. Muslims are instructed in the Qur’an not to befriend an infidel.

The information that Mr Javed Khan has provided about Islam is either a classic example of taqiyya (holy hypocrisy) or is a “secular Islam” that is not true to form. It is true that secular Muslims may not be particularly literate in their own faith and so do not practice it according to the Qur’an. These Muslims will be called apostates by those who do practice true Islam, and they will not be regarded as true Muslims. They will also be slayed by the sword if they resist the call to practice fully.

When the NZ census figures were collected back in 1901, there was only one Muslim recorded as living in this country. Today there are about 40,000. Our total population is just over 4 million. Muslims are still proportionately a very small number, and therefore it is required that they live peaceably here. Only when the ratio changes in future to a much higher percentage will there be a call to assert more influence on the government towards elements of sharia-facilitating legislation. It is critically important that we know the real threat of Islam - the real Islam - and take all measures possible to minimize the risk of it developing to the situations now presenting in Britain and Europe.

You are invited to read and if you wish, to register and contribute discussion to as well, the posts made to the most recent subject on the Visiblesoul Forum.

This subject concerns the restriction of free speech when it comes to religions, beginning with Islam and the recent conviction of someone in a German court, and the possible repercussions this may have for the exclusive claims to salvation of Christianity itself.

When you scroll to the bottom of this Journal page, you will come across seven small clickable buttons, each of them with a name on the same little background picture.
The picture is that of the altar and the view through the altar window of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Lake Tekapo, in the south of the South Island of New Zealand.
If you first came to my Journal by a direct route from elsewhere, you may not have realized that it is part of my larger website that includes five other pages. You are invited to visit those other pages as well.

The seventh button takes you to the Visiblesoul Christian Website from which my website and Journal are hosted.

How much freedom do you think we have? And how much responsibility goes with such freedom?

I remember being told very early in the piece that with privilege comes responsibility, that one does not exist without the other - or should not, if one was a decent human being. I think the same can be said for freedom, since freedom is a privilege clearly not shared by all in this world. But what exactly is this responsibility that we have? To what extent must it be for others, and how much for ourselves?

The editors of the two NZ papers which printed the Muhammad cartoons yesterday apologized in a meeting with Muslim leaders and convened by the Race Relations Commissioner. They apologized for the offense caused, but did not resile from the decision to publish. In return, the Muslim leaders recognized freedom-of-the-press issues. The president of the (NZ) Federation of Islamic Associations felt it had been a successful outcome.

But what exactly is responsibility when it comes to personal reactions? If you do something that I find to be offensive, and someone else did not find to be offensive, then does that mean you did two different things? No, of course you didn’t. You did one thing, but there were two reactions. In fact, there can be as many reactions as there are people to react. So who is responsible for the reactions that occur - you, or the people reacting?

Two women are baking cakes in their kitchens, both of them using identical recipes. Coincidentally, both of them leave out the raising agent and the resultant cakes turn out to be a bit of a mess. One of the women, on taking her cake out of the oven, gapes in horror and then worries and starts the negative “self talk” that drags herself down into hopeless despair and self-loathing. Yes, there are many people around whose self esteem rest entirely on their achievements and can brook no failure without it reflecting in a somewhat fragile self image. But the other woman, on seeing her cake, gives a sigh of frustration but matter-of-factly sets about planning how to recover without any harm done. She does not catastrophize nor relate this to her own self esteem. Two quite different reactions to the identical situation, and each the responsibility of the owner of the reaction.

Two men have insults thrown at them, but in a language that they do not understand and so they have no idea what was said. They look at each other and pull one of those faces that says “Did you get that? Neither did I.” They did not feel insulted - not because no insults were thrown at them, but because they did not comprehend. Again they have the same insults thrown at them, this time in their own language which they do understand. The words are heard and a huge network of neurons fire within their brains, both cognitive and affective associations being made. One simply laughs and walks away. The other raises his fists and fights back. Who is responsible for each of their quite different reactions?

Now if I did something that you find to be offensive, I can certainly feel sorry that you have reacted that way, and I am likely to even say that - “I am sorry!” or “I am sorry that you are offended by what I did.” It is quite possible that I might even, out of compassion, say “I am sorry that I offended you” since I know it is not a pleasant experience to feel offended. But that is not to say that I should be blaming myself for your offence taken because, in fact, it was you and not me who is responsible for your own reaction. Would I do it again, knowing that you will be offended? Well… it would very much depend on what exactly it was that I did, and how important in the larger scheme of things it was that I did. I may not wish to offend you, but it may be that there are even more important things to consider. And this is where responsibility comes into the equation. The responsibility to consider all things and to make the decision that I honestly believe to be best.

So our two newspaper editors apologized for the offense caused, and the Muslim leaders recognized the freedom-of-the-press issues. I’m not exactly sure what that means. I would like to think that they took responsibility for their own reactions, but I have not been told that they did. If we are all to enjoy certain freedoms, which in this world are priveleges that all do not have, then we have a matter of responsibility to consider. Is it that we must be responsible for the reactions of others, and if so, to what degree are we responsible?

I think I have been hearing many say that we are indeed responsible for the reaction of others - that the Press is therefore irresponsible to publish information that will have negative social outcomes.

But just a moment… what about those who are doing the reacting? What about their own responsibilty for the attitudes and beliefs that they hold, and to curb their reactions in the interests of preventing negative social outcomes. Is responsibility to be abrogated for them? No, this is a both ways affair. And what about the responsibility we have to protect our freedoms, and to exert them despite the fact that not all will react in the same way? Oh-oh, there is much to consider in this whole big issue, and just right now when I observe the events on the world stage, it is still looking awfully one-sided to me.

With the current furore hotting up against Europe by enraged Muslims worldwide over the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in several more newspapers - first in Denmark, and now in France (whose editor has been sacked for doing so), Spain, Germany, Italy and Holland - we have just heard that our capital city’s national daily newspaper plans to do the same in tomorrow morning’s issue. The editor already knows it is a risky move, the small percentage of the population who are Muslim having threatened that there will be consequences and reprisals.

Last month I posted an entry “Here We Go Again” concerning the special treatment that Christianity got in the way of ridicule and misrepresentation, with the pearls of believers being trodden into the mud. Some Christians had protested vehemently about the TV show “The Book of Daniel” created by Jack Kenny, and I asked how it was that political correctness did not work in favour of defending the Christian minority when it would seem to do so all other minorities. Would Jack Kenny dare to create a show doing the same to Islam, or would his head soon depart from his shoulders? The show was withdrawn after only three episodes, there not being enough interest to keep it running.

As a personal comment, I admit that I would not have considered drawing any such cartoons myself, not even now - no more so than I would have encouraged Jack Kenny to portray Christianity as he did either. But neither do I see these two actions as entirely equal to each other for reasons I mention below. Where my reservations occur is that Islam considers images of Muhammad an act of idolatry, and while it can be said that I will write the truth so why not draw the truth, and that it may seem rather precious to show respect where little may be deserved, I do respect the same sentiment in the Amish who will not draw faces on the dolls of their daughters. The bottom line is that I do not seek to give offence although should offence be taken when the action was justified, it may well be that the other has the work of reconciliation to consider. That is something about me, not anything about Islam.

The blogosphere is now spreading these cartoons around like crazy, and the Muslim reaction is incredible. Is there a difference in these situations - the Jack Kenny portrayal of Christianity, and the cartoons of Muhammad? Yes, I think that there is.

Those cartoons that I have seen so far are really nothing but mild in their portrayal of the prophet of Islam - the original ones published in Denmark. They say nothing at all about him that Muslims do not already say about him themselves. It says nothing about Islam that Muslims do not practice that is Islam. In short, they are for the most part objectively true representations. On the other hand, Jack Kenny’s portrayal of Christianity was not a true representation. It was a mockery and seriously lacked any resemblance to truth. Mulims do not like the caricatures, but they will readily worship the same aspects of their prophet as penned in the sketches.

There is another big difference to consider. What kind of reaction resulted in both cases? Compare the small amount of protest by a small number of Christians to the massive and amazingly excessive reaction of Islam where death threats have been issued, flags burned, apologies demanded and punishments requested, ambassadors (Libya and Saudi Arabia) withdrawn from Copenhagon, angry mob beatings, boycotts, a fatwa issued, and numerous diplomatic protests including to the United Nations itself.

Islam will not tolerate crticism, cannot stomach satire, and can laugh off nothing that it perceives as occurring against it. Humour is out. But in the west, this is not just about humour - it is the far more serious matter of holding on to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech surely must allow the freedom to criticize, to annoy, ridicule and even offend. There will always be some who object to something another has said, but except where the laws of libel and slander can be used to moderate such expression, this is considered a right that we need to defend as part of our culture. There are also laws against reactions that are excessive such as death threats and damage to property and person.

The really positive thing about this whole furore, and an outcome that is just what was needed, is that it appears that the west is now finally waking up to just what is involved by the encroachment of Islam. At last we have a situation where it becomes irrational and blind to approve the notion that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and that it has merely been hi-jacked by the likes of OBL, al Qaeda and the Hamas, etc, who make it appear to be something terrible that it is not. The hue and cry comes from ordinary Muslims everywhere. They are forgoing any practise of taqiyya and demonstrating just how intolerant and violent is Islam when a slight is perceived. This is the general reaction of all Muslims, not just a few who might be called radical. The real colours of true Islam are showing for all to see. So do we want to lose our freedoms for which our fathers and grandfathers fought to protect in the two world wars of the last century? Surely we don’t. But if we are not to say a word supposedly against Muhammad or Islam, then we are already losing those freedoms.

Now I am wondering what is going to happen in this country after tomorrow. Our newspaper editor knows very well that he is taking a risk. But he is taking a stand, and what worse things may happen if he doesn’t do that? I congratulate him on taking a stand for our freedom.

4 February:

The Wellington Dominion Post - Cartoons ‘test of Islamic tolerance’

The Wellington Dominion Post - Danish cartoons in NZ media raise concerns over trade risk

The Wellington Dominion Post - Editorial
The editorial expresses my own position well.

No cartoons of Muhammad are shown anywhere on this site, or on the sites linked to above.

With the recent success of the Hamas in Palestine, all Jews and Christians living in the region must be very worried indeed - as should we all. Christians once made up about 10% of the population of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but now their share of the population is believed to have fallen to less than 2%. Many are leaving to escape the increasing Islamicization of society and the constant violence. Folks are very scared that Palestine is destined to become a second Iran.

Hassam El-Masalmeh, the leader of the Hamas contingent at the municipal council of Bethlehem, has already warned of an impending introduction of al-jeziya, a special tax which would be applied to all of the non-Muslim residents in the Palestinian territories. This tax revives the one applied through all of Islamic history to the dhimmi, the second-class Jewish and Christian citizens. This and other measures to humiliate and subdue non-Muslims are destined to be their lot.

Those who have read the Hamas Charter will know that these people intend to put into practice all that which is found in the Qur’an, and rule according to Shariah law. That can only mean more grief for those who are not Muslims.

Sometimes I wonder where our God is hiding in all of this great mess. Why is He allowing this to happen? Why isn’t He somehow putting a stop to all this violence and bloodshed, extreme irrational hatred and such force against all to whom He gave free will to choose for themselves? How does one believe in the words of the Psalmist where it is written “indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (verse 4) and “the LORD will keep you from all harm — he will watch over your life” (verse 7)? Doesn’t it all make rather a mockery of these words?

The hills in the photo background to the psalm are a part of New Zealand’s beautiful Southern Alps. The hills referred to by the Psalmist are those in the vicinity of Jerusalem, of which Mount Zion is one. As I understand it, the reference to Mount Zion is to the majesty and presence of God for it is on the holy hill of Zion where the ark of the covenant, the oracle, and the altars existed. To me the Southern Alps have that same quality about them - majestic and awesome, speaking of the presence of our majestic and awesome God. And the message is that we are to look to God for all our help when difficulties and dangers are greatest.

But what about the rest of David’s psalm - how am I to make sense of that in the light of what is happening in the Middle East? Well, this is how I understand it best.

Changing tack but still on the same course, remember what happened to Jesus after His baptism in the River Jordan by John the Baptist, and just before He began His ministry? We are told that he spent some time in the desert, fasting for 40 days and nights, and being tempted to use His divine powers in ways that were not the will of God. He was shown that He could have everything here on earth if only He turned from His Father, God.
When facing Pilate just before His crucifixion, Jesus said…

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
John 18:36

So what does all this have to do with the words of the Psalmist?

Now some may say that the following is a cop-out, but I don’t believe it to be so.

Being alive here and now, concerned for all I hear of what is happening in this world, horrified and fearful and sickened by the violent bloodshed, pain and grief that humans are able to inflict on each other, I am inclined to lower my eyes from those hills. I see what is in front of me, what is happening in this world, and I wonder where God is hiding. He doesn’t look to be there.
But the apparent foolishness to the worldly of those who are spiritual has me hearing what Jesus said that awful day to Pilate, and knowing which Kingdom that is His and where I, by the grace of God, believe I am heading will have me say that God does not depart from those who love Him. This current world is like a split second of time in all of eternity and the protection of our souls and our closeness to Him matters more than all else.

Oh boy, how can I say such a thing? Is God not in charge in this world too? Is He powerless to stop all this wanton carnage? Of course He is still in charge, and He remains omnipotent regardless. But He did give us free will and to go back on that part of the plan is clearly not consistent with His purposes. Well then, doesn’t it matter that our lives on this planet are battered and shattered and destroyed by the evil around us? Yes, of course it does! It matters a great deal. How could I feel as I do if it didn’t? But I honestly believe that something else matters far more. For a Christian, that is the Kingdom of which Jesus spoke before Pilate, the Kingdom of which He is King.

And for those who still believe that’s a cop-out, it needs to be remembered that those who love God are those who will demonstrate that through obedience to Him, and so be used in whatever way He asks of them. There is no sitting around moping and passing the buck - those bucks are usually passed right back to us. There is nothing here about passivity and denial of the reality of what is happening. We are to fight evil and replace it with His love, and that lovely Psalm of David reminds us to keep lifting our eyes to the hills and relying on the only One who can keep us wholly safe from the harm to our souls.

More chipping away at the foundations of western civilization…

I thought that multiculturalism (together with its tyranny of political correctness) protected minorities from culture bashing. Certainly if you are part of a minority group you can expect the liberal left to stand up for you like a big brother and tell everyone to play nicely, that after all everyone’s beliefs are valid today and are all worthy of equal respect and supposed credibility.

So what is happening here to the beliefs of the Christian minority, those who sincerely believe in the Gospel message? Why are they being ravaged with contempt and mockery? Why doesn’t Christianity deserve the same respect given to Islam, for instance? What voice in the media dares to do with Muhammad as NBC has done with Jesus?

I am talking about a new TV show called “The Book of Daniel”.
Here, have a read of this:

The new show is called “The Book of Daniel,” which is first and foremost a tired carbon copy of the outrageously dysfunctional suburban family shtick, but with the twist that this time, the Fool is played by Our Lord. Episcopal minister Daniel Webster is hooked on Vicodin and sees Jesus Christ regularly. His wife is an alcoholic. His son is gay. His daughter sells marijuana. His adopted Chinese son is a teenage sex machine. His female bishop, who asks him for one of his “Canadian headache pills” for the codeine, and later raids his office for more, is having an adulterous relationship with his father, who’s also an Episcopal bishop, whose wife has Alzheimer’s and keeps talking about penises.

Are there enough ridiculous, plastic characters in this spectacle yet? No, apparently not. Daniel’s brother-in-law escapes town with the church treasury, but his wife and the church secretary have gone from a menage a trois to a saucy lesbian relationship. To find said brother-in-law, Daniel seeks out “Father Frank,” an Italian Catholic priest who (no stereotypes here?) uses his Mafia contacts to hunt down the missing money, so the mob can compromise Daniel.

Virtue Online

The creator of the show is one Jack Kenny. Apart from his departure from the Catholic Church where he felt unwelcome, one of the first facts reported about him is that he is gay, something that gives folk a chance to credit him with a preconceived stereotypical character, but that aside, the following is what he is reported to have said about himself.

“I’m a spiritual person,” he says. “I don’t know specifically what’s going on up there. I think there must be something going on, whether it’s an energy we’re all connected to or an old white man with a beard and a robe.
“I do believe in Jesus. I don’t necessarily know that all the myth surrounding him is true, but I read his teachings, and I think he was a great teacher and a wonderful philosopher. I think he had a great idea: `Love thy neighbor.’ There’s nothing wrong with that.”

Jack Kenny

To have such questions, I wonder how much attention he paid to his reading. If Jack Kenny thinks so highly of Jesus, then one surely has to ask why is he creating such a show? He might see nothing wrong in loving thy neighbour, but what about loving thy God? Is this how it is done?

A review by Joey Guerra includes the following comment:

To be sure, The Book of Daniel delves deep into heady, heavy topics within its fist two episodes. Themes of homosexuality, drug addiction and open marriages should have the AFA [American Family Association] spitting fire for many months to come. All that outrage should, in turn, translate into healthy ratings.

At its heart, however, The Book of Daniel is a compelling, unexpectedly comical, portrait of a family’s personal struggles with issues of faith, forgiveness and redemption. Daniel shows us that there are no easy answers in life, just constant questioning that moves us forward at a sometimes painful pace.

Joey Guerra

Those who object to this show are caught between a rock and a hard place. Why should they have their pearls trodden by swine, the graphic imagery used by Jesus to describe this sort of thing? And yet to protest plays right into the hands of the money grabbers who are making a profit by exploiting the attention of protestors. Even commenting here is giving the show attention, but it is hard to ignore when so much is contemptuous that needs exposing as such.

Now I have a question for Jack Kenny. Will he be brave enough to create a similar show about Islam? After all, surely multiculturalism demands a fair airing of all beliefs. Or might something roll off his shoulders before even the first act was filmed?

The last sentence in that quote is only half true. There may be no easy answers in life, but there most certainly are answers. They are found when one gets genuine about what Jesus is offering, gives up treating Him with contempt, and starts taking a good hard look at one’s life from His perspective instead.

I have actually known it for quite a while… that what is moral and what is legal is not always one and the same thing.
Same about fairness. As kids we used to wail “But it’s not fair!” as though everything simply must be fair or else. Or else what? Well, not in this life.

It is looking as though our once lovely classic car will likely be written off. The insurance company would allow us to insure it only for the maximum amount that they believed was its worth, and that value came from a set of tables that listed commercial prices for old cars. We had ours valued and a greater sum agreed upon, but it is still a very low sum and is the total amount payable should the car be written off.

But here is the catch… We may accept a cheque for the sum insured, a sum that is likely to amount to only half the cost of repairs, but the car then changes ownership and belongs to the insurance company.

What? Whoa there!
That is our car, our once lovely classic car that is unique and hard to replace with another the same in kind and condition. Why must we forfeit our car just because some irresponsible youth drove on the wrong side of the road and caused us this damage? We don’t even know him, and he did this to us, and we are to lose?
Yep, life is not fair.

The likely outcome… since we mean to keep the car, we will be ourselves paying out of our own pocket to do so. It is a lot of money, and much more than any 18 year old kid is likely to have, nor his Dad to want to pay in his place. There will be no legal obligation for them to contribute - under terms of the insurance policies - although it is easy to see that maybe there is some moral obligation to put right such a situation.
What is legally right, and what is morally right, is not one and the same thing.

But talk about fair… what do you make of the following?

Marluddin Jalil, a Sharia judge in Aceh, is blaming last year’s tsunami on the sins of the people, particularly of women. The Sharia police claim the tsunami happened because women ignored religion.
Tsunami was God’s revenge for your wicked ways, women told (Times Online)

In such conditions [poverty and decay] wild theories about the tsunami thrive. In a version of Pop Idol organised by the American and Indonesian Red Cross in Barak Lampaseh camp in Banda Aceh, the winner was 12-year-old Sheila Mentari, whose song told how God sent the wave as punishment for sin. She said her father, who died in the wave, would have approved.

A fellow villager Marzuki Lidan, 46, who lost his wife and children, was among the enthusiastic audience. He said: “The Sharia police are good Muslims doing an excellent job. We must listen to them and follow God's rules. Otherwise the tsunami will happen again.”

But why pick out the women in particular?
And is this really God’s justice?
Or man’s attempt to make sense of these massive tragedies that plague our planet at present?
After all, if any one of us deserves His justice, then surely we all do?

And justice is supposed to be a good and welcome thing - a putting right, not just retribution.

I get the feeling that justice is sprinkled piecemeal around the planet, some of it here, some of it there, and some of it missing some folks altogether… in this life, anyway.

Matthew 5:45 He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.