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.

I've done it again!

It is some time since I have had anything new to add to my C.V.!!! However, having been banned from commenting, reacting, posting good wishes to Facebook friends who were celebrating their birthdays, or even responding to personal messages for, this time, a seven day period, I feel that I may now include that particular accolade! At least, this time, I know that I am in good company! David Robertson has reported that no less a personage than Prof. Donald Macleod, former professor of Systematic Theology at the Free Church College, Edinburgh, and Principal for more than ten years, had also been banned! David also mentioned in last week's Quantum ("The Wee Flea podcast"), that Google and Apple had banned an 'app' because it cited John 3:16 and was "of no lasting value"! So much for the "free speech" for which most 'western' countries were, at one time, well-known.

As far as Facebook is concerned, Prof. Macleod had the temerity to voice some sympathy for Rev. Richard Cameron, minister of Scotstoun Parish Church, in Glasgow who, himself, has been suspended from his pastoral and parochial duties, by the Church of Scotland, for having publicly asked Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the UK Labour Party, "Who's going to be the first terrorist invited to the Commons when you're Prime Minister?" Given Mr Corbyn's well-publicised links with a number of terrorist movements, this does not seem, to me, to be an unreasonable question to ask. Thankfully, I do not believe that Mr Corbyn will ever enter 10 Downing Street as its tenant!

The Professor went on to state: "I am perfectly happy to let the LGBT community have their say. I am not happy that they should have a jealously-guarded right to monopolise the discourse, and I'm certainly not happy to concede the new dogma that the only wickedness is to question LGBT-ism. Christians, too, must have their say, and people should not lose their jobs because they are weak or off-message on such issues as homosexuality, bi-sexuality, trans-sexuality, or transgenderism." 

He continues: "Nor should we close our eyes and ears to where the gagging is actually leading. For example:

• If you are known to have reservations about the chosen lifestyle of LGBTs, you will not be allowed to be a teacher, a social worker, a parish minister, or a university professor.
• You will be barred from serving as a Member of Parliament, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, a local Councillor, or a member of the Judiciary.
• You will be ineligible for selection as an international sportsman (or, indeed, from participation in professional sport at any level).
• You will never secure employment with any charity.
• You'll never get a job with the BBC."

Please note that the Professor is not claiming that these conditions currently exist. Only that they are the almost inevitable outcome of the direction in which we are travelling. His complete article is well worth reading, and may be accessed at https://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/new-blog-post-4/  (copy and paste).

For myself, I again commented, critically, on a report regarding the 'marriage' of adult Muslim males - some very old indeed - to children as young as six years of age, and the particular reported comment by an imam that the hot weather made it more acceptable! The terms I used were terms that I have used many times before, without any comeback. However, this time ... ... !!!

Part of my reason for commenting was my (totally appropriate!) love for children, and my desire to protect them from any harm. This "child marriage" situation fills me with disgust, and I would cheerfully castrate any male (the word "man" does not seem, to me, to be appropriate) who wished to assault a child in this way. Just a few weeks ago there was a report of a girl of six, or eight, years of age who had died from internal bleeding caused by the penetrative sexual intercourse to which her adult "husband" had submitted her on their wedding night! I am, by both nature and belief, a non-violent person. However, give me 30 mins with that murderer ... ... !!!

It may be that Facebook will place a permanent ban on me, at some time. Not a problem - I shall then open a new account! However, it is sad that one cannot speak freely because these censors are checking every word we type. However, I'm back for the time being. Apologies, again, for having missed so much, and so many. I shall try to be a slightly better boy for the foreseeable future (but no promises!).

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!

I'm a male today; tomorrow, I may decide to be a female!

The heading is, I hope anyone would realise, something of a parody! However, it would appear that my contemporary society would be willing to accept such a statement. After all, why shouldn't I choose my own identity?!  Tomorrow, I may decide that I am something else; and I may change again on the following day!

I was alerted to this matter by David Robertson - who has been quoted before on this blog.  Last week, he reported that a debate had been held, in the UK Parliament, on a report from the Women and Equalities Committee which was the first "Transgender" debate in the Parliament.  David comments: "As I watched the debate it dawned on me that there really was no debate. A minority of people are going to drive through something that will cause a profound degree of harm within this country and make the fuss over same-sex marriage look insignificant (incidentally one of the reasons I opposed SSM was because I thought it would lead to further consequences such as this. At the time I was mocked for the ‘slippery slope’ argument but it turns out to have been right – we are not on a slope, we are on a helter-skelter to the pit)."

What is "transgenderism"? Well, if I understand the situation correctly, it is a 'popular' term for a recognised condition known as "gender dysphoria".  People who have gender dysphoria feel strongly that they are not the gender they physically appear to be, and the condition was earlier referred to as "gender identity disorder".

Such people require help.  However, there appears to be a move to make "transgenderism" a "norm"! This is, of course, completely contrary to Biblical teaching. In the beginning, we are informed in Gen 1:27, "... God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them." (emphasis added). Each of us is aware that we are born as either male or female, and what we are is defined, physically, by our genitalia! If a person is born with a penis, scrotum, and testicles, then that person is male; if a person is born with a vagina, then that person is female. Sufferers of gender dysphoria, as already stated, claim not to feel comfortable in the body with which they were born, but "transgenderism" is now pushing this so that I may "decide" my own identity, and gender!

Now, for a very long time we have had such facilities as "unisex hairdressers" where I might go in for a short back and sides, and be seated next to a woman having her hair permed. The difference, here, is that the push for "transgenderism" has led to situations in, e.g., the USoA with regard to washrooms, and showers in public buildings and in schools. The attempt by Barack Obama to enforce this was rightly resisted on the very sensible ground that it was "a pervert's charter"! I want to look at females in the washroom, or in the shower at a sports club? No problem - I just declare that I identify as a female, and I have immediate access to such areas!

This, it would appear, is the kind of situation that some in the UK would now like to see introduced! However, some go even further. It has been reported in the main-stream media (and I know that what is published by them is not always absolutely true!) that schoolchildren are being invited to state the gender, and identity, that they wish to adopt! I want to be a female Chinese ballet dancer.  Okay - I come to school tomorrow in a tutu, and with my eyes made up to look like a Chinese person. I also, of course, use the girls' toilets and showers!

All of this, it seems to me, is part of the so-called "sexual revolution"! It is also, of course, the inevitable result of departure from the Maker's Manual! We have had homosexual/lesbian so-called "marriage" foisted upon us; there are already moves to try to normalise polygamy; I read, not too long ago, of a woman who was trying to legally "marry" her dog! Another woman wants to be "married" to her adult son - a relationship that we used to refer to as "incest" but that she referred to as "genetic sexual attraction"! As David Robertson states: "we are not on a slope, we are on a helter-skelter to the pit."

This is a topic that is much too large for simple blog-posts, and I mention it only to raise awareness of it. However, it is a further moving away from the standards set down by the Creator and, I would contend, a further indication that we are in "the last days" when people do what "I" want - regardless of how it affects other people, especially my own family!    

If you wish to learn more, you may read David Robertson's very full contribution at 

https://theweeflea.com/2016/12/02/the-tyranny-of-the-progressives-another-step-backwards/