Life, death, and persuasion!

It’s a fifth Sunday so, normally, I would be promoting one of the books that I have written. However, with the UK General Election now just days away, I feel it incumbent upon me to comment thereon! I am dealing with only those political parties who have candidates in the new Motherwell, Wishaw, and Carluke Constituency – but others may wish to check out their own list of candidates, with most of the parties represented in the MWCC being also represented in other parts of the UK. With a total of nine candidates, I do not have the time to deal with those who, in all likelihood, will have very little support! That, I confess, is a subjective decision on my part!

What I do not have any intention of doing is telling others how they should vote. That is a matter for the individual conscience and, for those of us who claim to be disciples of Jesus, a matter of prayer for the promised guidance of God the Holy Spirit. However, I would urge that each of us who is entitled to do so, exercise our right to vote – a right that was gained for us by the hard work and persistence of generations now long gone! I realise that there are some (perhaps many!) who are unable, in all conscience, to support any of the current political parties. I understand! To any such I would make but one plea – Use your vote! It may be that you will just draw a big X over all of the names; you may wish to write “None of these!” across the ballot paper or, at the bottom: “None of the above”. Such actions will ensure that no candidate benefits from your having voted – and, more importantly, it will show as a “spoiled vote” and, if there were enough of those, the various political parties might even reconsider their selection criteria!

So what is this post all about? Well, what I want to do is to look at what each of the political parties has to say, in their manifestos, with regard to matters that are more of a moral nature than a social or financial nature. I refer, of course, to matters that are, quite literally, matters of life and death, and to one other that has a distinctly Christian aspect.

I did undertake the responsibility of actually reading through the manifestos of the main parties, and I will also refer to personal replies to a couple of e-mails that I sent to each of my own Constituency Candidates for whom an e-mail address was provided. This, I hope, will remove any concern that I am simply about to “bang my own drum”! I already know the party for whose candidate I shall vote.

Okay – first issue. Life. I refer to both abortion and to assisted dying/suicide. I found little information in any of the manifestos. However, both my Lib Dem and SNP candidates have, in e-mails to me, made clear that there support for both of these issues is in accordance with Party policy. In the case of the SNP response, it was clearly a pre-produced response, as Marion Fellows states “… the SNP … is committed to working with Gillian Mackay to support her member’s bill …” – a Bill that was passed a couple of weeks ago! Only John Mason (SNP) in the whole of the assembly had the courage to oppose it. Ms Fellows appears to follow the Party line with regard to assisted dying, but would not vote on it as this is a devolved matter. Previous correspondence with her indicates that she also follows the Party line with regard to abortion. The other response was from Gordon Miller who, at the time, was named as the LibDem candidate. He only responded to the “End-of-life Protection Pledge”. He claims a “Christian faith”, and that he has prayed much about such issues. However, his e-mail is, to me, less than clear. He states that “… my position on assisted suicide or euthanasia is rooted in my commitment to ensuring that any policy we support truly respects the most vulnerable and respects the dignity of all individuals.” His Party manifesto states that it seeks to “Give Parliament time to fully debate and vote on legislation on assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults with strict safeguards, subject to a free vote.” It makes no mention of the easily verifiable point that even the strictest of safeguards can quickly be watered down – if not disposed of altogether! However, I would also note that the final list of candidates names Hayley Bennie as the Lib Dem candidate. I have no idea as to why this apparent change was made – but there have been other instances reported of candidates being dropped because of their professed Christian faith!

The Conservative manifesto states that they “… will maintain the position that assisted dying is a matter of conscience, and will respect the will of Parliament. Debates on assisted dying should never distract from the importance of delivering high-quality palliative care services, and we will continue to support children’s and adults’ hospices.” It has no specific mention of abortion, but does state that “We will expand our international campaign on girls’ education, women’s rights, and reproductive rights.” Previous statements show that ”reproductive rights” include abortion. The party has a track record of providing funding for programmes that promote abortion overseas.

The Green Party manifesto states that “Elected Greens will support a change in the law to legalise assisted dying for people suffering from terminal disease who wish to avoid prolonged unnecessary suffering if this is their clear and settled will. Proper safeguards would be put in place.” There is no mention of abortion, but their single MP (standing down this time) consistently voted in favour of abortion.

The Labour Party, in their manifesto, make no reference to assisted dying/suicide. However, its leader has stated that “I’m personally in favour of changing the law … I think we need to make time (for a parliamentary debate). We will make the commitment … I will give you that commitment right now.” [conversation with Esther Rantzen]. The manifesto makes no mention of abortion, but does state that it “believes all women must have access to the full range of reproductive services, irrespective of where they live”.  Of course, as with other parties, it makes no reference to the health of the unborn child! It should also be noted that the attempts to legalise abortion right up to full-term (effectively decriminalising the procedure) has been headed by Stella Creasy and Dame Diana Johnson – two Labour MPs!

Reform, UK make no reference to these issues in their manifesto.

Secondly, transgender issues, and puberty blockers. These issues do not appear to have been included in the manifestos. However, both the Conservative, and the Labour parties have indicated their intentions if elected to government on Thursday. Labour has said, through the shadow woman and equalities secretary, that the party would “modernise” the system, making it more simple to obtain a “gender recognition certificate”. The Conservatives, on the other hand, has pledged to introduce new legislation that would change the definition of “sex” (i.e. gender!) to mean “biological sex,”, or “sex at birth”.

Both parties have committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cass Review – a landmark report on gender identity services for children and young people, published in April. It is, I understand, a complex, and far-reaching, review, with the author, Dr Hilary Cass, making several recommendations. NHS England has acted to implement policies that strongly discourage social gender transitioning before one has reached 18 years of age. Puberty blockers are also being withdrawn from medical practice.

Thirdly, so-called “conversion therapy”. This term applies to a practice that seeks to change, or suppress, someone’s sexual orientation, or gender identity. The problem, from a Christian perspective, is that it does not differentiate between certain coercive activities, and the pastoral counselling provided by many Christian clergy, and others. I recall, at Spring Harvest many years ago, counselling a young man who wished to deal with recognised homosexual tendencies. I shared with him from God’s Word, and I prayed with him (whilst holding his hands!). There are those, especially within the “LGBTQ+” community who would have me charged, convicted, and imprisoned/fined, for having acted in such a way.

As far as I can make out, none of the parties (apart from, probably, the Scottish Christian Party and the Scottish Family Party, neither of whom are standing in the MWCC) is supportive of Biblical counselling in these matters. However, Baroness Falkner (who chairs the EHRC) has, in a letter to Kemi Badenoch, has stated that “… any ban is fully effective in protecting people with the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment from harm, while avoiding any unintended consequences.” (my emphasis).

A brief word on marriage. None of the traditional parties appear to make any significant mention of this God-created relationship, although the Conservatives do oppose "child marriage" whilst expressing pride in their introduction of so-called "same sex marriage". However, Reform UK do propose a 25% transferable marriage allowance that would move a little closer to the French (and perhaps other!) system of "household income" for tax purposes. A number of the smaller parties do support marriage in one form or another.

Okay – a considerably longer post than normal but, if it has helped even one UK voter to decide what to do at the polling booth on Thursday, then it will have been worthwhile. Just remember – use your vote. It is your privilege, and your duty, to do so.

In the Beginning - Pt.6

A play; a horror movie; and as we move forward, it's almost as if we are reading some modern newspaper headlines! Typing this as the war in Ukraine continues, it is not unreasonable to say that now, as then, we stand on the brink of plunging ourselves into total chaos.

As we read Genesis 4, we are introduced to the first family, as Adam and Eve produce two sons. However, these two children, as they grew to adulthood, were very different. Cain, the elder, became a farmer while his younger brother, Abel, became a shepherd. The record reads: "In the course of time Cain brought to YHWH an offering of the fruit of the ground,and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And YHWH had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard." (vs 3-4). Now we are not told, specifically, why YHWH rejected Cain's offering, but the general consensus is that it was because it was not a "blood sacrifice" (he could, after all, asked his brother to give, or trade, him for a lamb and, doubtless, his parents had told him about the sacrifice that was made in order to provide them with suitable clothing). 

However, as we read on, there is the suggestion that Cain was not rejected because of his offering, but that his offering was rejected because of himself! "YHWH said to Cain, 'Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.'” (vs.6-7). This is confirmed by John in his first letter: "... be not like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous." (I John 3:12).  The inspired writer of the Letter to Hebrew disciples of Jesus states that it was "By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts;" (11:4). 

We see more of Cain's heart as we move on to the following verses. He both murdered his brother, and lied to God, doing so in blatant resistance to the clear warning that YHWH gave him (vs.6-7 above).

Passing over the genealogy of chapter 5, we find that Genesis 6 shows a general decline. The first four verses are, to say the least, cryptic! However, what may be safely said is that a new depth has been reached in the progress of evil. One possible interpretation of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" (v.2), is that the 'godly' line of the descendants of Seth, mixed with the 'ungodly' line of the descendants of Cain. Whatever the truth, there is a deterioration in human relationships. There is also the reference to the Nephilim - or "mighty men" (v.4). This may have been the opinion of other people, but God sees them as fallen people - and it is His verdict that stands!

These two 'scenes' may remind us of the abuses that are so obvious in the 21st century world around us. Earlier, I was reading about the demonstrations, in the USA, regarding the possible overturning of the "Roe v Wade" verdict regarding abortion. The report also had many photographs. One interesting placard, amongst many interesting placards read - "Abortion access saves lives"! How does one define "life"? Surely it is defined by spontaneous growth. I have never seen a car behave like that, nor a house, nor an aeroplane, etc., etc. However, from the precise moment of conception there is growth. From that instant, the DNA of the potential human being is fixed. That embryonic clump of cells is a living being. Within a very short time, it is a sentient being. Abortion ends that life - at whatever stage it takes place. If more people would take the time to check out the stages of a pregnancy they would discover, among other things, that by the time the mother has decided to take a pregnancy test, the heart is already beating. "Abortion access saves lives"!? Not the baby's! Abortion is more accurately spelled "murder"!

Of course, even in modern "democratic" nations, the majority is not always right - and I actually doubt that the majority are pro-abortion, even if they are the more vociferous! 

Those opening verses of Genesis 6 are not very encouraging - but God is still on the throne, and we will discover, next time, something about what He does next!

Numbers!

As I am currently banned from posting on Facebook, I share this video here. The speaker is Glen Scrivener, an Australian who works in the UK as Director of "Speak Life", an evangelistic charity involved in proclamation evangelism, training of leaders, equipping churches to witness and producing evangelistic resources.

Please feel free to share!

General Election, 2019

Well with only a couple of days to go, I've decided that it is time for me to throw in my tuppence-worth on Thursday's General Election. At this stage of the campaign, I reckon that most people will already have made up their minds as to which Party/Candidate they are going to support (or even if they are going to vote at all!), so I doubt that I will change anyone's mind - but the 'blurb' at the top does state that "Some of my posts stray into politics ..."!!

In the constituency in which I am entitled to vote, there are five candidates, representing (in alphabetical order) the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, the Scottish National Party, and the United Kingdom Independence Party. I am not a political guru, and insist that only the poll that will be taken on Thursday is of any importance, but given the figures from the previous GE, it would be a major upset for the SNP if their candidate failed to secure the seat. However, she will not be receiving my support! Why not?

The reasons for my refusing to back the SNP are the same as those for refusing the Labour, and Liberal Democrat, Parties. The first of these is the support of these parties for abortion. If you have been reading my blog for any reasonable length of time, you will know that I am totally opposed to the murder of a human being, in its mother's womb, for whatever reason, and by whatever nomenclature. Labour are proposing the total decriminalisation of abortion. This would mean that babies in the womb could be legally killed, for any reason, right up to the day of birth. If ever enacted, it would be the most extreme abortion law in western Europe. The Lib Dems proposal on abortion is not quite as extreme. However, they propose to completely decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks. This would mean that babies in the womb could be killed for any reason with no checks and balances. This, in turn, would legalise gender-selective abortion which must mean that Lib Dems approve of this discriminatory practice.

Where do the SNP stand on this emotive, but important, issue? Well, I read through all fifty pages of the Manifesto - but found no mention of a policy on abortion. However, the party's position was more than hinted at by the furore that followed John Mason's motion, to Holyrood, that access to abortion be restricted. He received no support from the Party!  

The Conservative manifesto does not contain extreme policy proposals on abortion as Labour and Lib Dem manifestos do. Regretfully, there are also no commitments not to further liberalise the abortion laws, and the party has shown, in the past, that it is willing to bring forward liberal policies that were not in the manifesto.

In matters concerning gender self-declaration, or no-fault divorce the Conservatives, again, have no specific policy proposals. However, as with abortion, this does not mean - recalling their 'track record' - that they would not legislate if they take power on Friday.  The other two main (UK) parties, have extreme proposals on gender self-declaration, and both propose to introduce the unilateral destruction of families through no-fault divorce. The SNP appear not to have any policy proposals on these issues, either.

You may have noticed that I have not made any reference to what has become known as "Brexit". However, I find it to be of interest that they state, in their manifesto, that "Unborn children are children. 218,581 abortions were performed in the UK in 2018. UKIP will seek to reduce the number of abortions carried out in the UK, and we will support alternative options such as adoption." This party also " rejects any moves for new laws to make gender a self-declared condition. Gender is not different to biological sex. There are two sexes – male and female – determined by anatomy and chromosomes."

So, for me, given the choice that I have, there is only one party to which I could give support. I hope that others, particularly those who claim to be disciples of Jesus, will have checked out issues such as those I have mentioned, and will prayerfully decide where they should place their X.

Of course, at the end of the day, I believe in the total sovereignty of Almighty God. The Psalmist asked: "Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?" He went on to paint a word-picture: "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and His anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.' He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, ..." (Ps 2:1-5).

May His will be done, on Thursday, and every day, to His glory.

Womb - or tomb? (Part 2).

This is the second of the brief series of posts that I published in Aug. 2014 and that I am now repeating in the light of the current controversy in the USA. Once again, I have not changed anything.

For a number of years I gave the opportunity, to my senior pupils, to choose a major topic for discussion.  One of the most popular was that of abortion!   However, one day I was summoned to the office of the head teacher.  He had received a telephone call from a parent, complaining about my having told his 16-year-old daughter what happened at an abortion (almost as if he thought that the rest of the class had not been present!).  I cannot now recall his exact words - as related to me by the head teacher - but the gist of them was that he didn't want his daughter, already able to legally engage in sexual intercourse, to know what happened, "in case she ever needed to have an abortion"!

That, I believe, is a major part of the problem about the procedure.  So many do not know - and do not wish to know - what actually happens.  They are content to believe that all that is removed from the female is a homogeneous bundle of cells, no more 'human' than an appendix or than tonsils.  That is why, I suspect, so many talk of the woman's body, as if that was all that was involved.

I'll explain a little about procedure in a subsequent post but, for now, let's determine exactly what it is that is being aborted.

It is safe to say that the female - girl or woman - does not know, for certain, that she is indeed pregnant until approximately seven to eight weeks after conception.  By that time, the embryonic heart is already beating!  I would suggest that it is also safe to say that, by the time a decision is made to seek an abortion, and arrangements made for the procedure to take place, another four to six weeks will have passed.  This means that the earliest stage at which an abortion would normally be carried out would about twelve to fourteen weeks after conception or, to put in another way, approximately one-third of the way through the pregnancy.

With the benefit of scans, we now have a clear picture of what the unborn child is like at that stage in its pre-natal life.  At twelve weeks, the foetus measures about 60 mm from crown to rump and weighs between 9 and 14 grams. It is fully formed, from tooth buds to toenails, and the baby's job now is simply to continue getting larger and stronger for the rest of the pregnancy. With the most critical development behind the foetus, the chance of miscarriage drops considerably after this week.  However, it is only at this stage that the possibility of an abortion becomes a reality!  This, it must be clear to any normal person, is no 'lump of cells'.  This is, unmistakably, a baby - a human being at an early stage of its development, but a human being nevertheless.

This little life is, of course, dependent upon its mother - but it is a totally separate being.   A unique individual, just waiting to be born.

Next time, we'll look at some of the methods used to kill this little life - and to turn the womb into, temporarily, a tomb.

Womb - or tomb? (Part 1)

The current controversy, in the United States of America, regarding "late-term abortion" - i.e. legalising abortion right up until the infant is actually in the birth canal, in the process of being born - and what is, in fact, infanticide - allowing a fully delivered baby to die, or be put to death (a euphemism for 'murdered'!), has led me to do what I have never done before in the more than eleven years during which I have been 'blogging'. I am re-sharing four consecutive posts from August 2014 on the subject of abortion. As then, I am not wishing to enter into any discussion on the subject. I am merely highlighting the procedures that are followed when a child is deliberately killed in its mother's womb.

This is the first of the series, exactly as written at the time (so please excuse 'time-specific' references!).

"In a speech yesterday - that is in no way connected to the forthcoming General Election!! - Mr David Cameron set out new measures to help families, and made a fresh commitment to put family life at the heart of Conservative policy. Among other things, he said: "For me, nothing matters more than family. It's at the centre of my life and the heart of my politics. It's family that brings up children, teaches values, passes on knowledge, instils in us all the responsibility to be good citizens and to live in harmony with others."

I liked that bit about "It's family that brings up children" because, of course, the children must be there to bring up.  Unfortunately, too many don't make it that far - and the government could do something about it!

Earlier today, I was reading about Moloch - a god of the ancient Canaanites or Phoenicians - mentioned by the Old Testament prophet, Amos (5:26).  As part of the 'worship' of this pagan deity, that was represented by a large bronze statue with a cavernous mouth that contained a furnace, mothers would throw their own live children into that mouth, where they were devoured by the flames.  In such a way, tens of thousands of innocent victims were used to placate this 'god'.  Drums were even beaten loudly in order to drown the screams of these little children.

I cannot imagine any normal human being, including Mr Cameron - our new champion of the family! -  not being appalled at such atrocities.  However, if we look at the society and culture in which we live in this 21st century, we discover that we are no better!

The modern equivalent of Moloch is, I would argue, much more implacable than the Canaanite 'god'.  Indeed, if we compare the tens of millions of victims today, then those human sacrifices of antiquity pale into numerical insignificance. 

Today, and for many decades, we do not throw these children into a fire. Rather, their lives are snatched away in the cold, sterile, silence of the abortionist's operating room.  Not even given the opportunity to breathe, these little human beings are sacrificed on the altar of the 'personal convenience' of the mother.  In the womb - where they should be most protected - their little lives are snuffed out, and their little bodies are discarded.  The human sacrifices becomes, until it is emptied, a tomb!  Such is the wonder of 'modern civilisation'!

Now, in order to pre-empt some anticipated comments, let me say that there are some - very rare - situations in which abortion is the least worst thing to do.  But these are, indeed, very rare.

I expect to continue this theme for a couple of posts, so do ensure that you return to the blog!"

What's in a name?

When a couple are expecting a child, one of the exciting things that they tend to do is to think about what name(s) they will give the baby when it is born. When my wife was pregnant, we had chosen two sets of names - one if the baby should be a girl, and another if the baby should be a boy. Today, of course, the gender of the unborn child may be known from quite early on in the pregnancy - giving the lie to any suggestion by the pro-abortion lobby that what is aborted is merely an amorphous lump of cellular material!

In the last post, I looked at the Old Testament prophet, Hosea, and how he was commanded by Almighty God to take a wife - who would be unfaithful to him! However, as we read the book that bears Hosea's name, we discover that his marriage to Gomer appeared to have started well. Before too long, their first child was born. What name would they give this little boy? They didn't name him after his father - or after any other relative. Instead, in obedience to God, they gave him the name 'Jezreel' = 'God shall scatter' for, said YHWH, "... yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. And on that day, I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel." (Hosea 1:4-5; see II Kings 10:1-11).

Then gradually, Gomer's interest in her marriage began to fade and, soon, the symptoms of an extra-marital affair began to show - unexplained absences; unreciprocated love; endless excuses; etc. However, although Hosea's suspicions were surely growing, it was not until the arrival of a second child - a daughter - that his doubts became certainty. "And YHWH said to him, “Call her name 'Not pitied', for I will no more have pity on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all. But I will have pity on the house of Judah, and I will deliver them by YHWH their God; I will not deliver them by bow, nor by sword, nor by war, nor by horses, nor by horsemen." (Hos.1:6-7).

After this little girl had been weaned, this unfaithful woman bore a second son. "And YHWH said, 'Call his name 'Not my people', for you are not My people and I am not your God'." (Hos.1:8).

What a sad story! According to the law of the time, Hosea was entitled to have his wife stoned to death for her repeated adultery. However, he chose to forgive her. His love for her was too strong to be broken by her infidelities. Of course, he was considering God's particular interest in his marriage. It was, after all, to be a visual aid for Israel, enabling them to see what was happening in the bigger 'marriage' between themselves and their Covenant God.

This, Hosea declares to the people. Speaking the words of YHWH, he says: "Plead with your mother, plead - for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband - that she put away her harlotry from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts; lest I strip her naked  and make her as in the day she was born, and make her like a wilderness, and set her like a parched land, and slay her with thirst.

4 

Upon her children also I will have no pity, because they are children of harlotry. For their mother has played the harlot;  she that conceived them has acted shamefully." (Hos.2:2-5).

As I look around me, I see so much of that which claims to be the Church - the Body of the Lord Jesus, the Christ - acting like the kingdom of Israel. I hear those who have been ordained to the ministry of the Word, diluting it; diminishing it; denying it; destroying it. Those who proclaim from their pulpits that when Jesus said: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." (John 14:6), He didn't really mean that He is the only way! Those who support the 'marriage' of persons of the same gender, in spite of it being contrary to the clear teaching of the written Word of God. Those who appear to be happy with the latest fad of 'transgenderism', by which I may simply declare myself to be a woman, and society must treat me as such - including allowing me to share the ladies' showers at the gym: a veritable pervert's charter!

There are those who claim that it is only by conforming to the standards of the contemporary culture that the Church can survive. Yet I see those denominations, and congregations, that espouse this point of view continuing to lose members (many of whom were only 'paper-members' in any case!) hand over foot. Perhaps they need to return to the Word; to reflect on the inspired words of Paul that we should "... not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." (Rom.12:2).

Of course, all of us may learn from Hosea, and the patience and forgiving love that he displayed towards his wayward wife. We will be learning from the Lord Himself - Whose love for us is beyond anything that we can think, or imagine. As I shared recently, in a preached message (you may hear the message here: http://www.eel-bergerac.fr/message%20du%2001.10.17.mp3 but I should warn you that it is in French!), He cannot love you any more than He already does - and Calvary proves it!

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.

Taking offence!

My standard "joke" on the topic is that I never take offence unless I can find a matching gate (you may have to read that aloud to get it!)!  However, I really am amazed at the number of people who take offence at the slightest thing.  A recent newspaper report informed of one woman who was offended by the colour that was named on a can of paint in either Lidl or Aldi.  The name was "Rape Yellow"! Having passed fields of flowering rape on our way to a Praise Evening, earlier this evening. I can quite understand the name.  A veritable sea of waving yellow flowers that will, in due course, be harvested for their seeds in order that the pin might be extracted to produce - yes, you got it: "rape-seed oil"!  I wondered if that particular woman refuses to use such a product in her kitchen.  Now, it is true that she claims to have been the victim of a sexual assault when she was younger and, if that claim is true, then I have a great deal of sympathy for her.  But to be 'offended' by the word on a can of paint!  She presumably never reads a newspaper, or listens to the radio, or watches television.  In all three, the word recurs with saddening regularity!

In the realm of the religious world, it is no better.  Sometimes, indeed, it is often the case that officials decide that a particular group will take offence, and decide that their will be no reference to, e.g., CHRISTmas, but that Winterfest will be celebrated instead!   Even among those who claim to be disciples of Jesus, there are those who are very quick to take offence, whether such offence was intended, or not.

Of course, those of us who "offend" others are in very good company.  Matthew records that, when Jesus had preached in His "home" synagogue, those who had known Him as a boy and young man were astonished at His wisdom. "'Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's Son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His sisters with us? Where then did this Man get all this?'  And they took offense at Him." (Matt 13:54-57; emphasis added).

David Robertson, the current Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, is a personal friend.   Those who think that I am a "plain speaker" had better not read any of what he says! He is regularly castigated for what he publishes in his blog: "The wee flea".  (That name, I should explain, is a play on the name of his particular denomination, popularly referred to, in Scotland, as "the Wee Frees". Think of the school boy 'jokes' about "flied lice", and you begin to get the picture.  A real flea, of course, also bites - and David's publications certainly do that!). However, all that he actually does is to tell the truth - and that is all that I seek to do myself!  When I post on the controversial topic of abortion, I don't "make things up".  I simply tell it as it is - the deliberate destruction of a human being who just happens to be at a very early stage of its development,but that is undeniably alive, and undeniably human.  That, I will continue to maintain, is murder.  However, that statement offends some who prefer to think of the unborn child as nothing more than a lump of tissue in the maternal womb!

Even the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, didn't see any need to 'pull punches'.  Read Galatians 2:11ff. Paul publicly rebukes his fellow apostle, Peter, and then relates the incident in a letter that was sent to all of the Christian fellowships in Galatia! However, we don't read of Peter making a fuss about it. You see, Paul's record was accurate.

Perhaps this is yet another area in which the world has been allowed to infiltrate the church - when it is the church that is called to infiltrate the world!   Yet God's Word provides clear guidelines for those occasions on which we are 'offended' by the words, or actions, of another.  Matthew 18:15ff is the relevant passage.

Of course, the greatest offence is the rejection of the Lord Jesus, the Christ, as the one and only Way to Father God.  For, as Peter pointed out, "... there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other Name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).  That offends many who prefer to think that they may, by their own good works, earn/purchase/deserve entry to the Kingdom of God.  However, much more seriously, it offends Father God Himself.  He loves you, and me, so much that, in the Persona (not a typo!) of the Son, He allowed Himself to be nailed to a Cross, becoming sin (see II Cor.5:21) that we might become righteous in His sight.

Have you availed yourself of that great offer of salvation?  It is so close to you, right now, as you read these words.  As always, if I may be of any personal assistance, please feel free to contact me using the e-mail address at the top of the page.  I don't check that account on the most regular of bases but, as soon as I find your message, I will happily respond.   By the way, for some reason unknown to me, I have not been able to access any comments for more than a year.  However, if any wishes to comment, they are welcome to use the same e-mail address.   I should also add that this post is not intended to offend anyone but, if it does, please look in the mirror before complaining!  Nothing in it is untrue!

Whatever you do, please be aware that it is your own eternal destiny that is at risk. Please do not let some perceived "offense" be the cause of you spending eternity cut off from Almighty God.

As up-to-date as tomorrow's newspapers!

Those who read the Bible with any level of understanding will appreciate what used to be often claimed that, in its basic teachings, it is not a bundle of irrelevant ancient documents, but is, as the title of this post says, as up-to-date as tomorrow's newspapers!

This was, once again, brought home to me during my personal devotions this morning.  Having completed my time in Paul's letter to the disciples of Jesus in Galatia, I decided that I should return to the books of the Minor Prophets, in the Old Testament.  These are the closing books of the OT, starting at Hosea and going through to Malachi.  I should perhaps point out that they are referred to as the "minor" prophets, not because they are less important than the 'major' prophets, but merely because their writings are shorter!

It is always useful, I would contend, to familiarise oneself with the background to any Biblical text before attempting to read it, and learn from it.  Accordingly, I picked up a commentary by Warren Wiersbe - in my opinion, one of the finest Biblical commentators of this generation.  In his introduction to Hosea, I read the following: "Israel was enjoying great prosperity, but Hosea could see that the nation was rotten to the core; for honest government, pure religion, godly homes, and personal integrity had vanished from the land.  Judgment was inevitable."

The book was published in 1996.  Twenty years later, those words are, surely, even more true of most of the so-called "western" countries, than they were back then.  I read my daily (online) newspaper; I receive additional information through e-mails; I am inundated by Facebook messages that also inform me as to the state of the world in which we live.  Sadly, I see that "... honest government, pure religion, godly homes, and personal integrity ..." are in as short supply today as they were in Israel [the northern kingdom; the southern kingdom, at that time, was referred to as Judah] at the time of Hosea.   In the UK there is a Prime Minister who appears, to many, to be an inveterate, almost pathological, liar.  The major, traditional, Christian denominations are almost indistinguishable from the world to which they should be an example, and a prophetic voice (like Hosea!).  Godly homes are almost as rare as hen's teeth.  Personal integrity seems to have become little more than a phrase from antiquity.

Is it too much to suggest that judgement is inevitable?  Indeed, is it possible that we are, in the 'western' world, already tasting that judgement?   When child sacrifice, under the name of "abortion", is practiced on a scale that would horrify even those who practised it millennia ago in an attempt to appease the 'deities' they worshipped, but merely because a pregnancy, and the responsibility of a child, would be "inconvenient", what right have we to claim that we are the civilised ones? When deviant sexual relationships are accepted as being perfectly normal, even although they are incapable of producing children, what allows us to call our selves "progressive"?  When people are murdered, under the label of "euthanasia", because they have reached a certain age, and are no longer 'productive' members of society, how on earth may we call ourselves loving, caring, and compassionate?

All of the above - and there is so much more - is in total contradiction of the teachings of the Bible, and the will of the Creator God Who, through His servants, authored it (see II Tim.3:16).  However, Paul, writing to those Galatian believers in the letter that I have just finished reading again, warned them: "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." (Gal 6:7-8).  As a society, I fear that we are beginning to reap what we have sown - and it is not pleasant!

A mighty man of God named Moses, spoke to the Children of Israel shortly before his own physical death.  Listen to these words, spoken towards the end of that discourse: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life , that you and your descendants may live, loving YHWH your God, obeying His voice, and cleaving to Him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which YHWH swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Deut 30:19-20).

Have you chosen life?  It's readily available to you, and in a measure greater than was offered to those people all of those millennia ago.  Because the life that is offered to you is the very life of Almighty God - eternal life, here and now.  It is something that you can never deserve; never purchase; never earn.  It is offered, as a free gift, to those who are willing to confront, and confess, their sins - and their total inability to do anything about them - but who come to the foot of the cross of Calvary, and accept, by faith, that God has done it all, in Jesus the Christ.  He has paid the penalty that you and I ought to pay, that we might know salvation, full and free.  When you take that step, you become His child, adopted into His family: "How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has blessed us with every blessing in heaven because we belong to Christ. Long ago, even before He made the world, God chose us to be His very own through what Christ would do for us; He decided then to make us holy in His eyes, without a single fault - we who stand before Him covered with his love.  His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family by sending Jesus Christ to die for us. And He did this because He wanted to!" (Eph 1:3-5; TLB; emphasis added).

Like me, you may live in a world that appears to be "going to the dogs".  Like me, you may enter a new relationship; a new family; and have a new future.  The choice, always, is yours.  Make the right one!

The Ten Words (5)

Whilst it may be argued that each of the Ten Words (Commandments) impinges on our relationship with our Creator God, the first four are specifically so.  The remaining six serve as the standards of conduct in areas of human behaviour that generate the most far reaching consequences on individuals, families, groups and society.  In other words, the first four commandments have to do, primarily, with my relationship God-ward; the following six with my relationship man-ward.

Commandment number 5 deals with the most basic human relationship, and is the second that is framed in a positive fashion.  It reads: "Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you." (Ex 20:12), and Paul points out that "... this is the first commandment with a promise." (Eph 6:2).

So what does this commandment mean?   In a world in which many who are able to do so spend small fortunes to keep themselves looking as young as possible while, at the same time, seeking (and, in some countries, succeeding) to legalise euthanasia/assisted dying/suicide, these words may sound strange.  Why should one be concerned about parents and, by extension, other elderly folk?  Such a question would not have occurred to the children of Israel.   Alan Cole writes: "This commandment is part of the general attitude of Israel to old age (as symbolising and, ideally, embodying the practical wisdom of life) commended throughout the Old Testament (Lev.19:32), and found in many other ancient peoples, notably the Chinese." (Tyndale O.T. Commentaries; in loc).

We should honour our parents as those responsible for our existence.  We should honour our parents for the care that they gave to us when we were unable to care for ourselves.  We should honour our parents for the good example that they provide for us.  Sadly, we live in a generation, and culture in which not everyone would recognise such reasons for honouring their parents.  There are, in my opinion, far too many who do not have any relationship with one/both of their biological parents.  It is quite tragic when that is the case because the child is an orphan.  It is even worse when the child has been, effectively abandoned by the parents.  Many parents, in our 'advanced', 'civilised', 'developed', western culture do not care adequately for even the youngest of children.  Indeed, there are millions of mothers who, every year, are responsible - with the willing assistance of others - for the deaths of their children by murder in the womb (aka abortion!).   One doesn't have to read too many news reports to discover that there are many parents whose only example to their children is negative. I wonder if this is why we are experiencing an unprecedented breakdown in, not only family life, but also society as a whole? 

So, how do we honour our parents?  May I suggest that we do so by showing them love, and care; by providing for them in their old age; by recognising their continuing contribution to society in general.  When I was sharing these commandments with secondary school pupils in their early teenage years, I would suggest that it might involve such simple act as keeping one's bedroom tidy; offering to wash up after a meal; volunteering to take the dog for a walk.

Of course, there are parents who are extremely difficult.  However, honouring even such should be our default position.  We may then claim the promise that "our days may be long".  For the children of Israel, this would have been understood in straightforward physical terms, and would have been applied to the land of Israel.  Today, I believe, we may rightly spiritualise the promise.  The honouring of parents is a Christian duty (Eph.6:1; cf I Tim.5:3-4, 8), and those who do so may anticipate, not simply length of days in this world, but the eternal day in the next!  It isn't the whole of the Christian life - but it is an important component part.  Jesus, Himself, affirmed the commandment.  "And He said to [the Pharisees and the scribes], 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!  For Moses said, 'Honour your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, 'What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) - then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on'." (Mark 7:9-13).

It is also worth remembering that the way in which we treat our own parents, and older folk whom we know, may well be the way in which, if we are spared to old age, we will be treated.  We really do "reap what we sow"!