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