Death.

Some weeks ago, I conducted the funeral service for an English friend who had lived in the neighbouring department of Lot & Garonne, and who had died after a battle with cancer. He was a disciple of Jesus, and that simple fact made it so much easier to deal with the situation, as I was able to easily bring the Gospel message into the service - to the great pleasure of his widow! 

However, I do wish that I had received the following before that funeral. I would have quoted it, verbatim, as I now share it in print. 

« Blessed are the dead. 

"And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labours, for their deeds follow them!" (Rev.14:13).

This promise applies specifically to those recent believers who will suffer martyrdom during the last half of the awful tribulation period (“henceforth,” in context). But dealing as it does with the state of the believing dead, in principle, it surely likewise applies to all who die “in the Lord.”

How are they blessed? In numerous ways, according to this verse.

First, they are blessed in that they “rest from their labours.” In this life we earn our physical sustenance by “the sweat of [our] face” (Genesis 3:19). Here we must work hard to train our minds (Ecclesiastes 12:12). Now we constantly battle our inward, fallen nature: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24). Even as we attempt to serve our fellow man, our efforts are spurned and rejected. Not so for the dead! There all these labours will cease, and joyous, eternal service to the Lamb will commence (Revelation 22:3).

Secondly, they are blessed in that their labours continue to bear fruit even after they have gone. Perhaps even a previous word, or act of testimony, will be the eventual tool God uses to bring someone to Himself, and the reward will be properly distributed. No act done to the glory of God will pass unnoticed.

 

Thirdly, what a blessing to know that this state is promised by the very Spirit of God Himself. One’s worth at death is not measured by the content and sincerity of the opinions of friends at his funeral.

This doctrine should produce both great courage for the Christian and great comfort for the bereaved. »

Having prepared the above earlier in the week, I also received, today, notification of the death, in Scotland, of the father of David Robertson – whom I often quote, and who currently lives in Australia, so was unable to visit his dying father, and will be unable to attend the funeral service. I had known my English friend for about 8 years; Mr Robertson, Sen. I never met. However, I would like to think that my children could speak/write of me as David described his dad: “He was a humble, hardworking, faithful man who struggled with assurance, self-doubt and yet never let that get in the way of serving the Lord he loved, looking after his family, and earning the respect of all through hard graft, generosity, and dutiful service.  He was a good dad to me.”

Another comment by David reminded me of a man who had a profound influence on my young Christian life – Billy Grant. He died from cancer of the bowel many years ago, while still a relatively young man. I was able to visit him at home shortly before he died. Before leaving, I prayed with him, and his wife Sally (whose funeral service takes place tomorrow – is all of this “coincidence?!). I was thanked by them both for not having prayed that Billy would be necessarily healed, but that he would know the deep peace of Father God whatever happened in the following weeks. David writes, concerning his wife: “Annabel (who is such a strength to me in these times), prayed last Lord’s Day asking that my dad would know peace as he passed through death into the New Life.” I think, too, of a brother in the Lord who was a member of a Baptist Fellowship to which I belonged at the time. He, too, had terminal cancer. One day, while praying for him during my personal devotions, I sensed that I should visit him, and anoint him with oil, in the name of the Lord Jesus. I did so and, although he died shortly afterwards, his widow assured me that his final days were unexpectedly peaceful.

This morning, I was preaching on the topic of being “in Christ”. Those who are need not fear physical death. They will know His peace, and will be welcomed into His presence, to dwell with Him throughout eternity. The world can offer nothing like that!

Making up!

It may surprise some folk, but not all of my reading is Biblical or theological. Indeed, I enjoy a good novel as much as anyone and, with a Kindle, I can now read almost anywhere! Last week I read a series of books from one of my favourite genres: Science Fiction. Like most such books, there was much more of the "fiction" than there was of the "science". However, as long as one takes everything with the proverbial "pinch of salt", there should be no harm done.

My reason for mentioning all of that is that the story I read last week actually started me thinking along theological lines! Without trying to provide a synopsis of a four-volume tale, there was one woman, named Deirdre, who had been responsible for a terrible catastrophe that had struck mankind. She was now experiencing great guilt, and was seeking some way by which she might make up to the survivors for what she had done. In theological terms, she was seeking atonement. Sadly, she was unable to do so. Nothing was sufficient to enable her to make up for, to atone for, her terrible deed.

The English-language word "atonement" provides its own definition: "at-one-ment"! Atonement refers to the 'coming together' of God and man. Our sin has created a barrier between us and our loving Creator. Atonement has to do with the breaking down of that barrier. It has to do with reconciliation. So Paul writes that the Father “… through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (II Cor.5:18-19).

At the beginning, of course, there was a close relationship between Father God and the humans He had created - so much so that He walked with them in the beautiful garden in which He had placed this first couple. However, as we read in Gen.3, the serpent deceived the humans, and sin entered the fresh, new world. The close relationship between the Creator and the crown of His creation, was broken - and there was nothing that man could do about it.

In his latest book (A.S.K.) David Robertson writes: "When we do something wrong against a friend or someone in our family, I guess we can make up for it – we can atone for it. I once kicked a ball through a window – and I atoned for it by paying for the glass to be replaced. But when we sin against a pure and holy God, it’s not just a small matter…and it's nothing we can atone for." (ch.17: Forgiveness)

Praise God, He could do something - and He did! He established a ritual of animal sacrifice as "... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb.9:22). You may read all about that in the book of Leviticus. That system led, in time, to a unique sacrifice by which full restoration might be accomplished.  It was in the death of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, that atonement was fully realised.  It was as He gave Himself, willingly, in fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies, that reconciliation was made.

One of the old hymns that I love begins: "Not all the blood of beasts, on Jewish altars slain, could give the guilty conscience peace, or wash away one stain. But Christ, the heavenly Lamb, took all our sins away; a sacrifice of nobler name and richer blood than they." (Isaac Watts). As I type these words I am listening to a more modern song that proclaims the wonderful truth that "My sins, they are many; His mercy is more."!

Like Deirdre in the story, I can never, however hard I may try, make atonement for my sins. Praise God that He loves me enough that, in the Persona of the Son, He paid the price. It was in the unique sacrifice of the Lord Jesus that restoration was accomplished.  It is in Him that Father God is able to again have a loving relationship with you and with me.  In His humanity, He bore the punishment that we deserved; in His deity, He provided the perfection that alone could satisfy the righteous wrath of the Holy One. "He paid a debt He did not owe, because I owed a debt I could not pay."

Have you responded, positively, to that amazing grace? Have you accepted the reconciliation that was gained for you at Calvary? Are you "at one" with Father God? The offer is there and, as soon as you accept it, you will enter into that new relationship with your Creator that will last throughout eternity. 

[There is a full chapter on the word "atonement" in my first book: "Great Words of the Faith", which I recommend to you (as well as the other two currently available!). Remember that I have no hesitation in promoting these books because (a) I think that they are well worth having (or giving to a friend!) and (b) ALL royalties go directly to the bank account of Release International, in support of the persecuted church. Links available to both paperback and Kindle versions, at the top of the page.]

Two weddings, and a funeral.

It has been an unusually busy time for both my wife and me. As already intimated, my wife's mother died - a couple of weeks ago, now - and we had to fly back to Scotland for the funeral service. Then, having returned to Scotland on a Saturday, and been involved with the worship group in our French fellowship on Sunday, we commenced our next journey, by car, to Scotland on the Tuesday.  

It was while we travelled back, by air, that a wedding ceremony was viewed by, not only the hundreds of invited guests, but also by millions around the world through the benefits of modern technology. The couple involved were young; the bride was a divorcee (meaning that, according to the written Word of God, they are now living in a state of perpetual adultery - regardless of their personal lifestyles prior to the wedding!); and they had an archbishop and a bishop officiate at the ceremony.

The second wedding (and, for us, the real "wedding of the year"!) was between two octegenarians, each of whom had lived faithfully with a now deceased spouse and, indeed, each of whom had cared for that former spouse "in sickness and in health". The ceremony was conducted by their local Salvation Army Captain, and the number attending was less than one hundred. 

My mother-in-law's funeral service was conducted by a Baptist pastor who had visited her in the Care Home in which she had spent her last years on earth. There were, maybe, fifty people in attendance. Unlike the archbishop and the bishop, neither the SA Captain, nor the Baptist pastor are household names outwith their own immediate spheres of service.

When I arrived at our French church fellowship on the day following the 'big' wedding, I was met with excited reports of the sermon preached by the American bishop. It was, I was assured, a great message; a gosple message; delivered with charisma. I couldn't wait to listen to the recording!

However, the busyness of these past days meant that I have not had the opportunity - and now have no particular inclination - to listen to the aformentioned sermon. There have been too many reports that what was preached was "another gospel, that is no gospel" (see Gal.1:6ff). Rather than add  to the abundance of reports, allow me to merely reproduce some points made by David Robertson:

Some "... have commented that it was such a powerful message and it should get people to reading the bible. Still others that even if it wasn’t spot on we should take the Philippians 1:18 attitude “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached.”. But that is the key question – was Christ preached? Was the love of Christ preached?

It wasn’t.

1) Firstly if it had been it would have been the first time that the preaching of Christ met with worldwide commendation! Everyone loved it – from the atheist Ed Miliband, to the LGBT activist Vicky Beeching. Liberal and Evangelical alike sang its praises. It was such a post-modern meaningless sermon that anyone could take any meaning they liked. Listen to what Jesus says: “Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)

2) It was hypocritical.  Bishop Curry was at a wedding that upheld the traditional Cranmer prayer book (and biblical) view of marriage as being between a man and a woman – and which expressly said so. Yet he does not believe that – and has been active in getting the reference to procreation and to man and woman removed from the prayer book in his church. Incidentally his province is meant to be under the discipline of the whole Anglican Church, yet the Archbishop of Canterbury not only invited him but also enthusiastically endorsed him. Biblical Evangelicals within the Church of England have been well and truly shafted!   It is important to grasp that Liberals like Curry use words in different ways – we need to ask what does he mean by Jesus, love and the cross. We may be hearing one thing when he is saying another.

3) It was unbiblical – The sermon cited 1 John 4:8 out of context. I know that he did not have time to do all of this, but there is no way that the little he did say is reflective of the letter he took it from.   Just to mention a few things.

a) Sin – John sets the whole of the Cross-against the background of sin. Bishop Curry did not mention sin once. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (1:8).

b) The Atonement – John tells us that Jesus died on the cross for our sins. That forgiveness for sins comes from that. Jesus is the atoning sacrifice (the propitiation, turning aside the just wrath of God against sin) for our sins, and not only ours but the sin of the whole world” (2:2). This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters (3:16). This is love not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins (4:10).  When Curry spoke of the cross, it spoke of it as sacrificial, as exemplary, not as THE atoning sacrifice.  We too can be sacrificial and it is that sacrificial love that is redemptive and changes the world.   Can you see what he is doing? He is turning the cross from being THE redemptive work, to it being an example of redemptive love that we can all show. He is teaching us that we can save ourselves and indeed save the world by just having the kind of love that Christ had and following his example. That is not the Gospel. It is the antithesis of the Gospel.

c) Obedience – Obedience was left out of the marriage vows. It was also left out of the sermon. Which given that it was a sermon about love and love is defined as obedience in his text is a big miss! We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commands (2:3).   If anyone obeys His word, God’s love is truly made complete in them. (2:5). But the Bishop said nothing about obeying the commands of God. Imagine if he had said this – “This is love for God, to keep His commands” (5:3). Do you think for a moment he would have had such a positive response?

d) Loving the World was commended, not condemned – Do not love the world, or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them (2:15). See what great love the Father has lavished on us that we should be called the children of God! And this is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him (3:1). Bishop Curry made no distinction at all between Jesus and the world. So the world loved his message. If he had preached Christ, the world would have hated it. As it is the world loved his message, because it pushed all their buttons.

e) Beware False Teachers – Many antichrists have come (2:18). Do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work (3:7-8). Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. False teaching, false spirits, the devil being at work. Again none of that was mentioned.   The whole concept of evil and the devil's work was not part of the picture at all. But our battle is not against flesh and blood. Nor against Donald Trump. It is against sin, self and the satan.

f) There is a great division between those who know God and those who don’t. Whoever does not love, does not know God, because God is love (4:8). Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (5:1).  If you don’t know Jesus you are not born of God. And if you are not born of the God who is love, you cannot love in the way that John is speaking about.

Imagine if Bishop Curry had said to the young couple – “it’s great to see your love, but there is a greater love, and you really need to know that love. You need to know the God who is love. You need to trust and accept his atoning work of sacrifice. You need to show your love by obeying his commands (including being faithful to each other). You need to watch out for the evil in your own heart, and that from the devil. Always look to Christ “ But he didn’t (even though the Cranmer’s Anglican liturgy recognizes all those things); and he couldn’t because he does not believe that. He disobeys Gods word, denies his atoning sacrifice and does not teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

You can read the whole of David's article at

https://theweeflea.com/2018/05/21/bishop-michael-currys-sermon-a-distorted-gospel-divides-the-church/

There is also a link to an article by Gavin Ashenden, a former Chaplain to the Queen's Household, who resigned amid a row over a passage of the Qur'an, read out at Glasgow Cathedral, which denies  that Jesus is the Son of God, and God the Son. You may go straight to that article here:

https://ashenden.org/2018/05/19/michael-curry-the-royal-wedding-a-star-turn-offers-the-world-christianity-lite/

More and more, I am convinced that we are not only living in the "end times", but in the very "last days". I urge all who may read this post - be prepared. You will receive some guidance in previous posts, and from some of the links further down the screen.

Marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

In the past, I have published a number of posts on the general topic of marriage. However, one aspect has constantly been "placed on the back burner". I confess, that I have held off making any comment thereon for the simple reason that I know that there are some who will be offended by what I say. That is never my intention - but I have discovered, over the years, that when one shares the Word of God, there will always be those who take offense. 

In a recent post of his own, David Robertson writes: "It's easy to be 'prophetic' about the low hanging fruit of the obvious wrongs that everyone in our circle goes along with. But what about the really prophetic voice – speaking truth to a power which may not like it? Such speech may have consequences and we do need to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves, but I suspect that our prophetic voices are largely like the world's – we pick on the easy targets and don't really speak up for the difficult cases, especially when such speaking out may cost us. I would be more inclined to call that pathetic rather than prophetic." (emphasis added) Those words, especially the ones that have highlighted, challenged me. Not that I am claiming to be a prophet, or even a prophetic voice, but because the one thing that is common to all of the prophets is that they "spoke the Word of the Lord."

Sadly, divorce is all too common in our contemporary world - even among those who claim to be disciples of the Lord Jesus, the Christ. There are, of course, many reasons for couples divorcing from one another - and some may appear to be justifiable. Of course, it is also true that if some couples were to be in less of a hurry to marry, and actually get to know one another better, there might well be fewer divorces! "Marry in haste; repent at leisure" may be an old adage - but it is no less true for being that! Not that I am, for one single minute, advocating that a couple live together, as if married, just to see "how things might work out". If living together, they have already made a certain level of commitment. The difference is that, if the relationship sours, there is no need for a formal legal procedure to be followed. I also accept that some 'unmarried' couples have proved to be more faithful to each other than have some 'married' people to their spouses!

Biblically, divorce is permitted - but only in specific circumstances! Indeed, although permitted, we read in the book of the prophet Malachi: "You cover YHWH’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favour at your hand. You ask, 'Why does He not?' Because YHWH was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does He desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. 'For I hate divorce', says YHWH, the God of Israel, 'and covering one’s garment with violence', says YHWH Sabaoth. 'So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless'." (2:13-16). Note that divorce is considered to be as bad as violence!

What, then, does the New Testament teach on this subject? Again, it was accepted that divorces will take place - although I doubt that anyone then would have envisaged the rate of divorce in our own time! Jesus, Himself, made the matter clear: "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”" (Matt.19:4-9). See also Matt.5:32; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; I Cor.7:10ff.

It would be my contention, based on Biblical teaching, that anyone who is divorced, and 'remarried' (in the eyes of the law) is, as one friend puts it, "living in perpetual adultery"! I Cor.6:9-10 is worth reading - but then continue into v.11. In Jesus, the Christ, there is always forgiveness for the truly repentant.

This is a subject that is really too big for a blog post. If you wish to hear some solid Biblical teaching on the subject, then I recommend the David Pawson 'lecture' at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgJVt5IUSWo 

It is an hour and three-quarters - but well worth the time given.

There is one further matter that I wish to address, in due course - remarried divorcees in church leadership. That could (conceivably) cause even more offence to some!!

Meet the Nativity.

Thank you to David Robertson who introduced me to a series of videos produced by "Speak Life" - an organisation that I have known for many years. The videos are available on YouTube, but I plan to publish them here, on my blog, over the next few days. I just know that you will enjoy watching them - I trust that they will speak to every heart. Ignore the date mentioned at the end!!



For our free book offer, visit http://MeetTheNativity.com

Only the best is good enough!

Throughout my increasingly long life, I have often been informed - in a negatively critical manner - that I am a "perfectionist"! I was reminded of that when I read these words, in a blog from David Robertson: "... please send us your best – no other sacrifice is good enough for the Lord."

The reason why those words resonated with me is that it is in that area that I willingly plead "Guilty", as charged. The Old Testament prophet, Malachi (he whose book is the final one in translations from the Hebrew), had something to say about the subject. The literal translation of his name is "my messenger", and his ministry consisted of calling God's people - the Children of Israel - back to their spiritual responsibilities, and to a fresh commitment.

Malachi wrote his prophetic message about 450 B.C., at the time when the Children of Israel had returned to the land of Judah, in Canaan, and had succeeded in rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem. However, once this had been achieved the people, as had happened so often before in their long history, had become backslidden and idolatrous. Malachi is the prophet, chosen and called by YHWH (the LORD) to reawaken them, and to challenge them to live up to their God-given responsibilities as the Chosen People.

The prophet criticises the people in four main areas, the first of which was their failure to put God first in their list of priorities. They had begun to take Him for granted, and had lost their sense of spiritual need. Worst of all, it was the priests - those who should have been teaching the people and ensuring that they kept the Torah (which is much more than "Law" in our modern, Western, sense) - who were most guilty! Malachi's accusation is specific: "A son honours his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a Father, where is My honour? And if I am a Master, where is My fear? says YHWH Sabaoth (the Lord of hosts) to you, O priests, who despise My Name." (1:6). He goes on to make the accusation even more specific by pointing out that the priests, instead of offering unblemished animals for sacrifice, were palming off, on the Almighty, cheap and worthless beasts. "You say, ‘How have we despised Thy Name?’  By offering polluted food upon My altar. And you say, ‘How have we polluted it?’ By thinking that YHWH's table may be despised.  When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favour? says YHWH Sabaoth." (1:6-8).

Today, of course, animal sacrifices are unnecessary - certainly for disciples of Jesus whose voluntary death has fully paid the penalty for our sin. We are still obliged, however, to honour Almighty God as Father and Master. If we fail to do so, and neglect to give Him His due - in time, money, energy, talents, concerns - then we are no different from those priests from 2,500 years ago. If we are, indeed, disciples of Jesus, this may be the very moment in which we should re-establish our priorities! 

At the end of this section - what we know as the first chapter of the prophecy - are these words of YHWH: "Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to YHWH what is blemished; ..." (v.14; emphasis added). A man who offered an unfit sacrifice in Old Testament times was referred to, by Almighty God, as a 'cheat'! We, too, fall into this category when we refuse, or fail, to give Him our best. As David Robertson said: "- no other sacrifice is good enough for the Lord."

Australia showing the way?!

The following information came from someone with whom I have recently become friends. To my mind, it makes rather disturbing reading, especially as I had just read David Robertson's latest post. I have added the link to that post at the end - it is (as always!) well worth reading.

Make sure the grocery buyer in your household reads this. 

There should be more leading Australians like Dick, he gets to the bottom of important issues and anything that amounts to selling out Australia is very important.

A WARNING FROM DICK SMITH:
You may be aware that " Dick Smith " chain franchise stores are being pressured by the Islamic Council of Australia to gain 'Halal Certification' otherwise they will be proscribed and banned from Muslim custom.

This is their response:

A MESSAGE FROM DICK SMITH.
"We at Dick Smith 's have received a number of letters from people asking if we will be putting the Muslim Halal logo on our food.

To acquire Halal certification, payment is required to the endorsing body (the Islamic Council) and involves a number of site inspections of both our growers and processors in order to ensure that our practices comply with the conditions of Halal certification.

It is important to note that this does not reflect the quality of the food being processed or sold – it only means that the products are approved as being prepared in accordance with the traditions of the Muslim faith.

We are aware of an increasing number of large companies both in Australia and overseas, such as Kraft and Cadbury, who have obtained accreditation to use the Halal logo. We don’t believe they have done this because of any religious commitment but rather for purely commercial reasons.

Perhaps these large organizations can afford to do this.

While we have a choice however, we would prefer to avoid unnecessarily increasing the cost of our products in order to pay for Halal accreditation when this money would be better spent continuing to support important charitable causes where assistance is greatly needed.

We point out that we have never been asked to put a Christian symbol (or any other religious symbol) on our food requiring that we send money to a Christian organization for the right to do so.

Others would add that money paid to ANY Muslim 'organization' (and you had better believe it: these people ARE 'organized') can easily find its way into the hands of Islamic extremist-fanatics and murderers, irrespective of assurances to the contrary.

What other assurances do we accept from Muslims? Oh, that's right, 'Islam is a religion of PEACE'!  How less Australian can companies get, than to place money into the hands of those who seek to exploit us?"

This is an example of how the leaders of Muslims in Aus./NZ. are bullying large commercial organizations (especially in the food industry) into paying what is no more than blatant extortion money. The amazing part is that these weak-kneed organizations (Cadbury/ Schweppes/ Nestles/ Kraft etc.) actually pay the large sums demanded by these self-appointed religious bureaucrats.

Of course, the manufacturers promptly pass this levy on to unwitting consumers as cost increases.

Next time you buy a block of Cadbury's chocolate, look for the Halal Certification seal on the wrapper. So, regardless of your own religious faith, you end up subsidising Islam.

The Council also controls the Muslim voter bloc which, as yet, does not have sufficient critical mass to make a difference - but give them time.

Several state jurisdictions are under pressure to adopt or permit Sharia Law in Marriage, Family and Property matters and some, under the delusion that they are being progressively liberal, are permitting this. This has already happened in some local authorities in the U.K. Google the U.K. Education Department's current investigation into the conduct of Muslim-run schools in the Birmingham area of England.

How many more warnings do people need?
Check the produce on the shelf and don't buy anything Muslim extorted.

THANK YOU FOR READING THIS RIGHT THROUGH TO THE END

Here is the link to David Robertson's latest post - you will quickly understand the relevance!

https://theweeflea.com/2017/09/26/victoria-and-abdul-re-writing-history-to-indoctrinate-todays-society/

A principled man!

Prior to the referendum on the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the European Union, I don't think that I had ever heard of the Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg, Member of Parliament (Conservative) for North-East Somerset. However, his obvious depth of knowledge; his razor-sharp wit; his debating prowess; his ability to make his point in a mature, gentlemanly manner; and his overall demeanour; caused me to look more closely at this man - whose name suggests that he lives in an élite bubble, unaware of the circumstances of "ordinary" people (although that is, quite obviously, not the case!).

I have continued to keep a close eye on "JRM" in the many months since the result of that referendum was announced - even although the government have not yet represented the will of the majority of UK voters. He has become, as many will be aware, the favourite to replace Theresa "Sharia" May(be, maybe not!) as Prime Minister, and has an enviable following in social networking - many of his followers being from the younger generation!

Of course, this has meant that he is suddenly the man every radio and television presenter wishes to interview. One such interview, was on Good Morning Britain, which aired yesterday morning, and in which Mr. Rees-Mogg, in answer to a question, told presenters Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid that he supported the teaching of the Catholic church and opposed gay marriage, adding: “The teaching of the Catholic Church is completely clear.” He was also asked if his opposition to abortion included cases of rape and incest, and replied: “I’m afraid so. Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception, and I think it is wrong.”

My first reaction to the reports of this interview was to be grateful for a modern MP who is not only a man of principle, but who is not going to hide his principles for the sake of "popularity". Of course, the usual leftie-liberal-luvvies went into a hyper-ventilated frenzy of opprobrium. "This homophobe wants to take us back to the 18th century" may not have been said, verbatim - but it sums up a fair number of the comments that I have since read by those who believe that they have the freedom to publicly disagree with JRM's personal beliefs - but who would deny him the right to publicly state them! As has often been said - the most intolerant people are often those who demand tolerance!

Now, let me state clearly that, with regard to matters of theology, I am opposed to certain matters of doctrine that JRM would presumably hold - even marriage is seen by him, as a member of the Church of Rome, as a sacrament. I do not agree with that. However, my mind goes back to when I was a student at the University of Glasgow. The former Trinity College had been "acquired" by the University, and was now the Faculty of Theology. In what was seen, by many, to be a bold move, a priest of the Church of Rome, from the nearby Cardross Seminary, was invited to speak to the new Faculty - staff and students - for the first time in some centuries. I was there, as a rabid evangelical, ready to denounce whatever this man might say that would be in any way opposed to my solid Protestant heritage. I left the lecture, somewhat chastened! I discovered that I had more agreement with this Roman priest than I had with some of my regular lecturers! Since those far-off days, I have counted a number of members, and clergy, of the Church of Rome to be among my friends - including a Prince-Cardinal of the church!

However, going back to JRM, I am - as those who know me well would expect me to be - in full agreement with him on these two specific issues. More than that, I firmly believe that, in speaking as he did, he was representing the views of many of the "silent majority" who recognise that the nation has not merely drifted away from its Judaeo-Christian roots, but has been deliberately led away by a succession of governments and others who have been under the influence - and, in some cases, have themselves been active participants - of militant atheists, secular humanists, sexual deviants, and devotees of the so-called New World Order. Certain newspapers have been quick to vilify him. There are those who claim that his views will have totally destroyed any possibility he may have had of becoming PM.

I have now added JRM to my personal daily prayer-list, and will be praying for him and his family that they may know divine protection from those whose metaphorical knives are being sharpened in order to metaphorically stab him in the back. Perhaps you will join with me in doing this!

As usual, my friend David Robertson has published an excellent post on his own blog. You may access it by clicking on this link:

http://theweeflea.com/2017/09/07/the-man-who-could-make-me-vote-tory/

If you have the time, do listen to the video-clips that David has provided. If short of time, then miss out the Ali-G one!

What price life?

This is the blog post from David Robertson that I thought that I had simply "Shared" on Facebook! However, only my own comment explaining why I had done so has appeared in the public arena! 

I share it here so that it may reach as wide an audience as possible. As always, he expresses my own sentiments better than I can do myself! Well worth the read. 

The Real ‘Dirty Deal’ – Abortion, Northern Ireland, the BMA, Killing white babies and Sacking the Disability Commissioner 

Wheeling and Dealing

Politics is all about deals and compromises – especially if you have a minority government, like the current UK situation. In such circumstances in order for a government to get their programme through there has been a great deal of wheeling and dealing. The Democratic Unionist Party are masters at this and as a result they have got the people of Northern Ireland a good deal. Despite the faux pas outrage of Labour and the SNP you have to admire the DUP for doing what politicians are supposed to do – get the best for their electorate.  And of course Labour and the SNP are being hypocritical as they too were previously prepared to work with the DUP as this clip so brilliantly puts it.

The Real Dirty Deal

But there was a real dirty deal done today. Labour’s Sheila Creasy took the opportunity offered by the vote on the Queens speech to put forward an amendment offering women in Northern Ireland, free abortions on the NHS in England and Wales (the Scottish government had already said they would do the same).   Northern Ireland does not permit abortion except is cases of danger to the mothers life and serious dangers to mental health.   It is a devolved matter and therefore has nothing to do with the UK parliament – which did not stop Labour promising to impose a liberal abortion law on Northern Ireland.  The Supreme Court recently decided that it was not a human right to have an abortion and that it was up to the Northern Ireland Assembly to determine about abortion.  The UK government were opposed to offering free abortions but because they feared that several Tory MPs would support the amendment the government, wanting to avoid defeat on this amendment, found the money to make that offer.

There are so many things that are illogical and immoral about this decision.

We are told this is an issue for justice. Where is the justice for the unborn child?  Parents occasionally show me the photo/scan of their child at 12 weeks in the womb.  You can see the limbs, the features of a human being.  But people want to say that she is an it.  That he is not human but just a lump that can be removed.  The fact is that it is not just the woman’s body – there is at least one other human body involved.

We are told that the NHS is desperately short of money. Why then can £1 million be found to provide for babies to be killed?  People are rightly angry and asking about the justice for the 80 who died in the Grenfell tower fire. So why are we not upset that the UK government just offered to pay to kill around 1,000 Northern Irish babies in the womb in English hospitals?

We are told that the fact that the DUP are opposed to abortion is a sign that they are backward and out of step with everyone else.  Are Sinn Fein for abortion – given their Catholic roots? What about all the Labour MPs who are Catholic? Are they too spineless to stand up for their faith?   What is progressive and forward thinking about killing children in the womb? And why stop there? Why not have post-birth abortion if parents don’t want to keep their babies?

The BMA Betrayal

But it wasn’t only the politicians who were engaging in this culture of death – the BMA (British Medical Association) were joining in. BMA Votes to Decriminalise Abortion

In a decision that I suspect does not reflect many of the views of its members, but rather the politics of its leadership, the BMA this week voted to ask the government to decriminalize abortion. What many people do not realize is that abortion is illegal in the UK – except when two doctors agree that the health of the woman or the baby is in danger (the latter part always confused me – killing someone to improve their health doesn’t really work logically!). The BMA in seeking to change that are in effect seeking to permit abortion on demand up to birth. If you really need to know what is wrong with this, my good friend Dr Peter Saunders sets it out clearly – Why Decriminalising Abortion is Harmful

The fact is that the BMA have gone against the Hippocratic oath – – “Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion”. They have gone against every principle of medicine, justice and humanity – just to go along with the current political and culture of death zeitgeist.

The Depths of Meduza

There was one other abortion story this week – which reaches even lower depths. The feminist magazine Meduza had an article that argued that white women should have abortions in order to bring justice to non-whites! I had assumed it was a spoof but apparently not. Abort White Babies

White women: it is time to do your part! Your white children reinforce the white supremacist society that benefits you. If you claim to be progressive, and yet willingly birth white children by your own choice, you are a hypocrite. White women should be encouraged to abort their white children, and to use their freed-up time and resources to assist women of color who have no other choice but to raise their children.

Who needs a Disability Commissioner?

Finally another note on the same issue – The Times reported that Lord Shinkwin, who is Britain’s disability commissioner has been fired from his role. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had decided that his role was no longer needed.   Lord Shinkwin had argued passionately for equality for the disabled, including in the womb. Hence he needed to go. Because as I pointed out in this article in the Scotsman – Human rights are determined by the elites and are not subject to challenge. Some people have more rights than others. The child in the womb and the disabled do not share the same human rights as others (and I suspect that the poor, the elderly and the sick had better watch out as well).

What can we do in the midst of such rampant evil?

We must stand for the truth. We must speak up for the weak and defenceless.   Something which the church at its best as always done.   Traudl Junge (Hitler’s’ secretary) tells us what he thought about this Christian tendency.

“Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were out-dated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first.

Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.” (Until the Final Hour –p108)

Indeed. That is our aim.  To keep alive the week, those others consider ‘unfit to live’ and ‘people of an inferior kind’.   We are Christians.  We recognise that all human beings are made in the image of God.  All life is precious to us. On that we will not compromise or do deals. In the words of a far greater German than Hitler –  “here we stand, we can do no other”!

Well, he's a Christian!

One of the headlines in the MSM during the past week - later, understandably, overshadowed by the tragedy of Grenfell Tower - was to do with the resignation of of Tim Farron as leader of the Liberal Democrat party. His stated reason for having arrived at the decision to do so was that he felt it "impossible" to be Lib Dem leader while "living as a faithful Christian" and that he wants "to remain faithful to Christ".

How dare he?! What right has he to seek to live "as a faithful Christian"? I mean, how totally illiberal is that?!!

Being back in the UK for a brief visit, I was able to read today's edition of the free newspaper "Metro". In it, someone named Sophy Ridge defended a TV programme that she apparently hosts - "Sophy Ridge on Sunday". She confesses that, on her programme she "... pressed him for his personal views on abortion. Some viewers believed that I was wrong to do so - that his private belief should remain just that, private. Mr Farron accused me of 'banging on' about his faith. In his resignation statement he said: 'I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and Who my faith is in. In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society."

I confess to having had no time at all for Tim Farron and the Lib Dem's insistence that the 2016 referendum result was the result of people not knowing what it was for which they were voting. I was extremely disappointed when he eventually gave in to the badgering and - it is claimed, on the advice of others - declared that the "marriage" of homosexuals or lesbians, is not a sin. In making that statement, he went totally against the teaching of the Bible (although not of certain major denominations!).

Ms Ridge continues, in an attempt to defend herself, by writing that "Voters have a right to know what their political leaders believe in. Gay men have a right to know if politicians believe they are committing a sin when they 'make love' (my quotation marks!), and women who have had abortions have a right to know whether politicians think they have done something wrong." She may have a point! However, when Muslim Sadiq Khan was campaigning for the position of mayor of London, I do not recall any reporter, journalist, or TV 'celebrity' asking him if he believed that homosexual activity is sinful! Considering the treatment of homosexuals - and adulterers (well, the female involved!) - by his fellow Muslims, I wonder what his answer would have been. If he had been interviewed by Ms Ridge, would she have pressed him for a definitive answer if he had prevaricated in the least? Somehow, I think not! It is, and for some time has been, "open season" on those who claim to be disciples of Jesus, while Muslims have become a "protected species"!

My friend, David Robertson, ends his own comment on the Tim Farron situation with these words: 

"Tim Farron has done us all a big favour.

His warm, clear and impassioned plea for religious tolerance is what needs to be said – and acted upon. His example of giving up his role as leader of the party when faced with the choice of his Christian faith or his political career is shining: "I joined our party when I was 16, it is in my blood, I love our history, our people, I thoroughly love my party.  Imagine how proud I am to lead this party.  And then imagine what would lead me to voluntarily relinquish that honour. In the words of Isaac Watts it would have to be something 'so amazing, so divine, (it) demands my heart, my life, my all'."

We need Christians who will get their hands dirty and get involved in politics (we really don’t need the opposite – politicians who get involved with and seek to use Christianity for political ends). We need Christians who will be faithful – even to the point of committing political suicide. The love of Christ demands our heart, our life, our all.  And we need a Church which, instead of turning itself inside out in order to fit the culture, seeks to turn the world upside down."

May all of us, who also claim to be disciples of Jesus, be prepared to put serving Him first; make Him our priority; serve Him above all else. Then, perhaps, the world will see that serving Jesus does make a difference - and a positive difference. 

Some eighteen hundred years ago, a man known as Justin Martyr claimed that good Christians make good citizens. Let those of us who follow the Saviour prove him right - whether we are in the political spotlight, or not.