Get back to the Maker's Manual!

This is the last of my wee series based on the writings of the Old Testament prophet, Malachi. We may consider ourselves to be indebted to him for underlining the importance of living in obedience to the commands, and principles, of Almighty God. There were those among his contemporaries - as, indeed there are many today - who attempted to achieve happiness and success by ignoring the moral laws that God has built into the universe. But such a way - then as now - was a way of failure and discontentment. 

That begs the question: "What is involved in living responsibly in an age in which moral issues are somewhat vague, and blurred? An age is which, to refer to the apostle Paul, the bugle is definitely giving an indistinct sound (see I Cor. 14:8). An age in which sexual deviants are deferred to at every turn - in spite of the statistical fact that they make up less than 5% of the population. An age in which so-called "foreign aid" goes from the UK to countries that have nuclear and space programmes, and a despicable record on even the most basic of human rights."

May I suggest that it means developing a set of values based on the written Word of God - and sticking to them even when it is difficult, and costly, to do so? In our 'modern' society, it is often easier to conform than to resist. But we are enjoined to "... 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). We live at a time when it is more comfortable to compromise than to disagree - but the duty of those of us who make the claim to be disciples of Jesus, is to obey God, and follow His principles, regardless of the personal consequences. By the way, if that sounds even remotely hard, or legalistic, let it also be said that God not only raises the standard to great heights - He also provides, through the indwelling Holy Spirit, the power by which we may attain it. 

The fourfold standard that Malachi raised, almost 2,500 years ago, surely needs to be raised again today. Until we learn to honour God as God; until we make up our minds to expound, and explain, in our congregations and fellowships the importance of walking in His ways; until we resist the pressures of today's society and view marriage as a solemn and binding relationship between one man and one woman; until we recognise that our material possessions are not ours to own, but ours to use; we will remain, and become increasingly, spiritually impoverished and indolent. The time has come - indeed, it may be said to be long past - for disciples of Jesus to have our vision refocused. This can happen, only when we get back to the Bible - the Maker's Manual.

Personhood, and human rights!

We live in a society, and a culture, in which there is considerably more emphasis placed on "Human Rights" than on personal responsibility.  So, we are informed, violent killers; Islamist hate-preachers; illegal immigrants, including an Algerian illegal immigrant who was barred from seeing his family after threatening to burn them alive – and who won his appeal against deportation on the grounds that he is entitled to a family life; et al, are entitled to their "Human Rights" - regardless of the rights of the community at large!

However, it would seem that at least one group does not have any "Human Rights".  I refer to the unborn!  It has been widely reported that a child who was left disabled because of her mother's alcohol abuse during the pregnancy, is not entitled to a payout from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board because, according to the Court of Appeal, she was "not a person" at the time!  Lord Justice Treacey is reported as having stated that "Parliament could have legislated to criminalise the excessive drinking of a pregnant woman - but it has not done so."

An unborn child, at any stage during the pregnancy, is not a person!  This begs the question: "What is such an unborn child?"   There was a time when many were convinced that it was nothing more than an amorphous mass of cells - the "blob of jelly" to which reference was sometimes made.  However, with the advent of medical, and scientific, techniques such as ultrasound pictures, we now know that, from its earliest days in the womb, what is forming there is a unique, individual, human being!  Have the learnèd judges at the Court of Appeal failed to keep up with contemporary developments?

Of course, as the old adage has it, "It's an ill wind that blows no good" so, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (an organisation that supports abortion for any reason) stated that, "This is an extremely important ruling for mothers everywhere.  Women must be able to make their own decisions about their pregnancies."

Many rightly condemn the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Pol Pots, and others for their activities that led to the deaths of so many.  However, not one of them ever came close to the numbers of unborn children, murdered in their mothers' wombs, almost always because they are seen to be "an inconvenience".

The following is from a letter by Billy Graham posted, a few years ago, on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association website:

"Some years ago, my wife, Ruth, was reading the draft of a book I was writing. When she finished a section describing the terrible downward spiral of our nation’s moral standards and the idolatry of worshiping false gods such as technology and sex, she startled me by exclaiming, “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologise to Sodom and Gomorrah.” ... ... ...

"I wonder what Ruth would think of America if she were alive today. In the years since she made that remark, millions of babies have been aborted and our nation seems largely unconcerned. Self-centered indulgence, pride, and a lack of shame over sin are now emblems of the American lifestyle."

Sadly, the same kind of comment could be made about much of the western world.  We stand condemned in the eyes of the Creator and Sustainer of all that is.

However, there is hope!  Writing to the early church, the apostle John states: "This is the message we have heard from [Jesus] and proclaim to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.  If we say we have fellowship with Him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth;  but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.  If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (I John 1:5-10; emphases added).

Did you notice those words that I have emphasised?  They are the assurance that, if we come to Jesus, confessing our personal sins and sinfulness, then He is able to make us new creations (II Cor.5:17), and to live our lives, ever after, for Him!

If we do so, then we have the further amazing promise: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Rom 8:1).  That word 'now' is so important.  Salvation, in and through the Christ, is not "pie in the sky when you die"!  It is for here and now.  I have eternal life, in Him - it's not something that I will only receive when I have done with this mortal body.

You, too, may have eternal life.  Not, necessarily, a 'bed of roses' - in spite of what some tele-evangelists appear to promise - but a life that makes Him more important than anyone, or anything else.  If you wish to know more, then please feel free to contact me using the e-mail address at the top of the page or, alternatively, check out some of the links at the bottom right-hand side.

Regardless of the decisions of the UK Court of Appeal, you have been a person since the moment of your conception - and you have been loved by Almighty God since before the world was even formed!!  Now, that's Good News!

Thank you, your Eminence.

With my cultural, and religious, background, I am constantly amazed at the fact that I regularly appreciate the pronouncements of various senior figures in the Church of Rome.  I recall, many years ago, actually telephoning the offices of the archdiocese of Glasgow to express my gratitude to the late Archbishop (later, Cardinal) Thomas Winning; I have publicly expressed my gratitude in the letters page of The (Glasgow) Herald newspaper; and, once again, I wish to do so - this time to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh.

The Cardinal is widely reported, today, as having made the (in my opinion) very valid point that aid packages from the U.K. government to certain countries should be conditional on a firm commitment, by the relevant foreign government, to religious freedom; and a pledge to protect Christians and other religious minorities.

He is reported as stating that "To increase aid to the Pakistan Government when religious freedom is not upheld and those who speak up for religious freedom are gunned down is tantamount to an anti- Christian foreign policy.  Pressure should now be put on the Pakistan Government, and the governments of the Arab world as well, to ensure religious freedom is upheld.  The provision of aid must require a commitment to human rights."

His comments were made at the launch of a Report into the persecution of Christians - a subject that is frequently aired on this blog - and follow the recent murder in Islamabad of Shabbaz Bhatti, the only Christian in the Pakistani Cabinet and an outspoken critic of the country’s blasphemy laws.  It is to be hoped that the words of such a high-profile clergyman will have some positive effect on the situation.

However, I was also interested in the reported response of the Foreign Office.  According to The Herald, Alistair Burt, the Foreign Office Minister, said the UK Government shared the Cardinal’s concern about the plight of Christians.  Mr Burt pointed to how Mr Hague (the British Foreign Secretary) had set up a new Advisory Group on Human Rights, which identified religious freedom as a key human rights issue at its first meeting in December. He also stated that: “It is vital that Pakistan guarantees the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their faith or ethnicity. We will continue to press for religious freedoms to be upheld in Pakistan and around the world.” (my emphasis!).

I would love to know how the present British Government manages to make such high-sounding comment with regard to the persecution of Christians in other countries, while apparently ignoring the increasing marginalistion of Christians in the U.K.!  I suspect that Mr & Mrs Bull (B&B owners); Lesley Pilkington (Christian counsellor); and Mr & Mrs Jones (former foster parents); would wish to take the minister to task in the light of the recent cases in which these people have been involved - interestingly, all at the instigation of the homosexual lobby (funded by the taxpayer, in the form of the Government-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission.)

My other concern is that while Cardinal O'Brien is standing up, publicly, and making his voice heard, the voices of the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (and those of the other Presbyterian denominations); the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland; the General Secretary of the Scottish Baptist Union; the leadership of the Congregational churches, the Methodist churches, Independent churches, and anyone from the Brethren movement, are deafening only in their silence!

Many of us need to seek forgiveness, for failing to speak out on behalf of our persecuted brothers and sisters.  The solemn words of the Lord Jesus, as recorded in Matt.7:21-23 and Matt.25:41-46 are worth pondering!

Human Rights - for whom?

"Tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime!"  That, if memory serves me well, was one of the meaningless mantras spouted by former-PM, Mr Tony Bliar (still not a typo!).

I would like to think that, as a disciple of Jesus, I would uphold the basic human rights of anyone - although it would appear that many folk consider their 'human rights' to be synonymous with 'whatever they want'!  However, the Human Rights legislation introduced by the Bliar government (did no-one at the time notice that Mrs Cherry Bliar - who, in my opinion, is just as obnoxiously greedy as her husband - was/is a QC who was an advocate of that legislation, and who has made a fortune in legal fees out of it?) is something with which this country could do without.

A failed asylum-seeker (i.e. his case for seeking asylum in this country was regarded as ineffective) mows down a 12-year-old girl, while he was banned from driving (and was uninsured), and flees the scene of his crime. A man who, it is reported, had run up a series of motoring offences and was convicted a second time for driving while banned three years after killing this young girl. A man who also had a string of criminal convictions including drugs possession, property damage, harassment and burglary.

He later turns himself in - the only positive aspect of the situation - and is jailed for four months!   And now, two senior immigration judges declare that he may remain in this country because, in the intervening period, he has fathered a couple of children, and to deport him would infringe his human rights!

I would like those two judges to visit the father of the young girl, for whose death this man was totally responsible - even 'though it was he who, apparently, had to make the excruciatingly difficult decision to turn off her life-support system - and explain to him the extent of his human rights, and those of his dead daughter.  Along with many others, I often wonder how these judges, whose lives are spent in a world that is obviously different from that of the vast majority of the British public, can bear to even look at themselves in the mirror each morning.  As Dickens' Mr Bumble would point out: " "If the law supposes that ... the law is a [sic] ass—a [sic] idiot." (Oliver Twist).

Perhaps Mr David Cameron would also like to visit the father!  In a pre-election pledge, the current P.M. wrote to him, promising reforms that would ensure “that rights are better balanced against responsibilities”. He said the Human Rights Act would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights.  However, like the promise of a referendum on the EU, this appears to have become a casualty of actual government - or perhaps it was sacrificed to appease the pre-EU, lefty Liberal Democrats?!

But if the human rights of a 12-year-old are not considered worthy of consideration by the British legal system, then the human rights of those as yet unborn is considered as unimportant by European law.  A woman who had to travel from the Republic of Ireland - and she isn't even Irish; she is Lithuanian! - is considered to have had her human rights violated because she was unable to have an abortion in the Republic.  The European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg, has criticised the Irish government for failing to implement legislation that would have permitted the abortion to take place because the mother's own life was at risk.  It may astonish some to know that, given a straightforward choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child, I would be prepared to sanction the abortion.  However - and it is a big 'however' - such situations are, thankfully, rare in the extreme.  In fact, according to the newspaper reports to which I have access, this woman's life was not in danger!  She was concerned - even afraid - that her pregnancy would bring about a relapse of cancer; and that there might be a risk to the unborn child if she went to full term.  That, I would contend, is a long way from her life being at risk!  I would also want to ask her why, if she had such fears, she had not taken adequate contraceptive precautions to ensure that she didn't become pregnant?

It used to be said that, in civilisations such as the Roman Empire, or the Aztecs of South America, human life was cheap.  It would appear that we have not really moved very far forward - at least as far as the human rights of some are concrened!