Abortion - the only way?

One interesting item of news in this morning's press was that abortion is moving back towards the centre of political debate!  It has been announced that the Coalition government has appointed pro-abstinence charity Life to a key sexual health forum, while omitting the pro-abortion British Pregnancy Advisory Service; and, at the same time, MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field are spearheading a new drive in parliament to tighten the rules on terminations as part of the health and social care bill.

Prayer vigils are taking place outside a number of abortion clinics, and those who attend are being gently reminded that this is a human life, that is precious to God, that is being terminated.  It is hoped that some may think again, and take advantage of the various supportive services that are available to those who are prepared to give their unborn child the opportunity to fulfil its potential. 

Let's not forget the mother who was a peasant with a family history of deafness, and who had already given birth to one mentally incapacitated child. She became pregnant by a mam who was an alcoholic and was afflicted with syphilis. If she had had an abortion, then there would have been no Ludwig von Beethoven; and the world would never have experienced some of the most moving, and magnificent music ever composed.

I recall a video that I used to show to my senior classes when we discussed the topic of abortion.  It was fronted by Pat Boone, and was simply called A Better Way.  Boone interviews people who found a 'better way' than abortion.  Interviewed are:
- A young girl who was helped in every way by her parents during her crisis;
- A young woman, peaceful and contented has her story told by her mother. The older woman tells of caring for her daughter whom she had conceived as a result of rape;
- A mature woman who conceived late in life and had been encouraged by doctors to abort. She introduces her son who was born healthy and intelligent in spite of her age at the time of conception.

He also interviews a very important couple who could not have babies but decided to adopt a family of children with special needs - children who might well have been aborted!

I also learned, recently, that Jane Russell, the film star who died  at the beginning of March, had an abortion when she was a teenager.  The experience left her unable to become pregnant again, and led her to be passionately pro-life.  "People should never, ever have an abortion," she declared.  "Don't talk to me about it being a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.  The choice is between life and death."

Apparently, the young Jane "felt horrible" about the moral evil committed in the abortion - that was so badly botched that she, herself, nearly died.  However, in 1955 (12 years before David Steel's Abortion Bill became law in the UK), she founded the World Adoption International Fund, that helped find a place for more than 40,000 children!  She also adopted three children of her own - and left six grandchildren, and 10 great-grandchildren when she died.

Abortion need never be the answer.  There is always a better way! 

Money, money, money!!

Three of today's news items would seem to stand in stark juxtaposition.  Each of them concerns the compensation culture that has become so much a part of the British way of life. 

The first concerns Sharon Shoesmith, the former Director of Social Services for the London Borough of Haringey who was in post at the time of the death of 17-month old Peter Connelly ('Baby P').  After an investigation into the running of the Department, she was sacked by the then Education Secretary, Ed Balls.  However, the Court of Appeal has ruled that she was the victim of "unfair procedure" in the manner in which the sacking took place.  This, it has been widely reported, leaves her open to claim her full salary and pension rights from the day of her dismissal in Dec. 2008 - a sum that could amount to almost £1 million!!!

The second has to do with an Austrian aristocrat, and multi-millionaire, Count Alfons Mensdorf-Pouilly, who was investigated by the Serious Fraud Office over allegations of bribery and corruption at BAE, the British aerospace company.  The Count, who lives in a spacious hunting lodge in the remote Austrian town of Luising, also has a home in Vienna. His Scottish residence, Dalnaglar Castle in Glenshee, Perthshire, was commissioned by Lord Clyde, Queen Victoria’s banker, from what was a 16th century hunting lodge.  He was reportedly awarded the sum of £372,000 after the SFO discontinued its enquiries.  It would appear that he was detained in prison for six days - and deprived of a clean comb and "decent" underwear.  His comment when he learned of the size of this payout was "I would have stayed four weeks if I had known that"!

Alongside these two cases is that of Paratrooper Ben Parkinson.  At 26 years of age, he was seriously injured, in Afghanistan, when his Land Rover was hit by a Taliban bomb.  He lost both legs; his back was broken; he suffered brain damage that severely affected his speech; he had a further 34 injuries; he spent 4 months in a coma; and needed 18 months treatment.  Although a high-profile campaign eventually increased the amount, his initial compensation payment, under the terms of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, was £152,000!

It seems to me that our society has reached a particular low when the suffering experienced by a brave soldier pales into insignificance beside the inconvenience to which a foreign aristocrat is put, and the failure to accept responsibility by a highly-paid Council employee.  I can't help wondering if the way in which some people spell 'compensation' is
G, R, E, E, D!

Change the Word?

I never fail to be amazed at the "coincidences" that God places in my way.  Since the beginning of the year, in my private devotions, I have been using the Military Edition of Our Daily Bread.  As I read the comment for today, I immediately thought of the post that I had added last night.  I share with you these thoughts provided by Dave Branon.

 

"The Bible, God's written Word, changes lives.  Its message of salvation makes the most profound change, of course, but Scripture can also change the way we treat others. It can provide a firm foundation for society with its clear teachings on institutions such as marriage, family, and the church.

But what happens when what the Bible clearly says - as understood for centuries by learned believers and scholars alike - is rejected?  Those who reject its teachings try to change the Word.

Two Greek words can help explain this: eisegesis and exegesis.  Eisegesis is the process of reading into a passage something that is not there - inserting a meaning that flows from a personal agenda.  By contrast, exegesis means drawing from the passage the clearly intended meaning, using context, other scripture passages on the same topic, and legitimate tools of understanding such as Bible commentaries.

Instead of trying to change God's Word to fit our own ideas, let's allow the Word to change us.  As we read His Word and obey it, the Holy Spirit will transform us into the kind of people God wants us to be.

Don't change the Word - let it change you."  [Copyright RBC Ministries 2011]

Would that many within the Church of Scotland, would read those words; reflect upon them; and then, in confession and repentance, seek the Lord's forgiveness for the un-Biblical path they are currently treading

Of marriage, injunctions, commitment, and sexuality.

I suppose that I could always take the time to look back in the archives, and count the number of posts that I have placed on this blog concerning marriage.  I don't propose (no pun intended!) to do such a count, but I know that there have been quite a few.

Two of today's news items have to do with that honourable, and God-given institution.  The first was the news that a Lib-Dem MP had named the 'anonymous' married footballer at the centre of one of the, now discredited, 'super-injunctions'.  Of course, the internet has been filled with his name for many days, and the hard-copy version of yesterday's Sunday Herald also named him.  Personally, until yesterday, I had never even heard of Mr Giggs - but then, I am no fan of overpaid, over-hyped, sports 'personalities'!   However, I find this case to be of some interest.  I have read comments that place the blame for the whole affair (sorry! No pun intended, again!) on the female who was allegedly involved in an extra-marital affair with the soccer player.  I have seen her described as everything from naive, to a devious, money-grabbing, opportunist.

It is not my place to either condemn, or defend, her - but I would make the point that "it takes two to tango"!  Whether she seduced a married man and father, or whether such a man seduced her, or even if the whole situation was mutually planned, the fact remains that if he had been faithful to his own marriage commitment, then there would never have been a story.

One report states that "Mr Justice Eady said when rejecting a second application - the first of Monday's attempts - by Sun publisher News Group Newspapers to discharge the privacy injunction, that the court's duty "remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can"."  Surely such "protection" is, primarily, the duty of the husband and father, not the court?!

The other related news item has been the ongoing debate, within the Church of Scotland, at its General Assembly, regarding the ordination of homosexual and lesbian clergy.  According to a report in the (Glasgow) Evening Times newspaper, "The Church of Scotland has agreed to lift its ban on gay ministers.  Commissioners at the institution's General Assembly voted by 351 to 294 to throw out the ban, which was brought in two years ago."  The report goes on to say that: "The Church has also agreed to set up a new commission which will prepare a report on various theological issues linked to the subject to be brought before the Assembly in 2013. After the publication of this report, the Church will discuss the subject again."

I feel, so very much, for those ministers, elders, and members of the Kirk who take a Biblical view of the practice of homosexuality/lesbianism.  There will, I suspect, be a great deal of 'soul-searching' in the coming weeks and months.  Will this decision lead to an exodus, from the Kirk, of those who are not prepared to bow down to the idol of 'political correctness'?  It's a major decision - and one that I am glad I don't have to make.

Any who do will, almost certainly, be immediately tarred with the fallacious term "homophobic".  The 'liberal' wing simply don't seem to understand the Biblical concept of loving the sinner, while hating the sin.  Yet that is exactly what the Christian Gospel teaches is the attitude of Almighty God.  Whilst it is not a synonymous situation, I think of the woman who was, allegedly, caught in the very act of an adulterous relationship (those 1st-century Pharisees would have had no doubt as to the guilty party in any alleged affair between a former beauty contest winner, and a footballer!), and brought before Jesus in order to trap Him into either agreeing to her being stoned to death, or denying the Mosaic law that demanded that penalty..  When all had disappeared after His statement "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7; RSV), He asked the woman "... where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again"." (John 8:10-11; RSV).  He was able to love the sinner, but did not condone her sinful act.

It seems to me that too many are prepared to major on the love and forgiveness of God (both of which are of inestimable importance - indeed, the former is the very essence of His nature), but forget that He is also the holy One, Who cannot even look upon sin.  The proof of that is seen at Calvary where, in the Persona of the Son, He became sin for us (see II Cor.5:21).  It was at Calvary that, as Graham Kendrick puts it in his song Come and see, "wrath and mercy meet."    It was there that He suffered the death that each one of us deserves, that we - heterosexual, homosexual, or lesbian - might receive the life that He gives.  Of course, that involves my acknowledgement that I am a sinful being, and that only He can do anything about it.   I then come, in repentance; receive His forgiveness; and start a life that is so new it's referred to as being "born again" (see John 3:16).

It's a life that's truly worth living - and, indeed, a life for which, almost paradoxically, many in the persecuted church are prepared to die!

Freemasonry - is it compatible with the Gospel?

Many years ago, I gave a series of lectures on "Cults and Heresies".  The best-attended of those evenings was the one on which I dealt with Freemasonry!  I was reminded of that series, and that particular lecture, this morning as I listened to the BBC Radio 4 programme 'Sunday'.

It was reported that, having been elevated to position of  Bishop within the Church of England, the Rev. Jonathan Baker has resigned from "the Craft".  This, it would appear, is actually in line with the stated position of the Anglican Church, that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible.

However, it was the affirmation by a retired Anglican clergyman, the Rev. Dr. John Railton, who was interviewed on the programme, that caused my ears to prick up.  Freemasonry, he contended, is a secular organisation, akin to the Rotary Club, Round Table, Probus, etc.  I would wish to take the reverend doctor to task!  To the best of my knowledge, Rotarians and the others do not refer to their meeting place as a 'temple'; they do not 'pray' to any deity; they do not have a 'holy' book centrally displayed at their meetings; they do not appoint a chaplain; they do not claim to have been founded by a character - Hiram Abiff - alleged to have played a part in the building of Solomon's Temple; they do not have signs and rituals that are (very) loosely based on Biblical events and characters.  All of these have a clearly religious element - and all are part and parcel of Masonic ritual, structure, and history!

So is Freemasonry incompatible with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ?  The audio recording of my lecture is available below, and will provide those who are interested with a considerable amount of material (there was a set of handouts provided and, as soon as I find the master copy, I will publicise the fact, and make them available to anyone who requests them) but the simple answer is "Yes!"  Here are just three of many reasons to support that contention.

1. Freemasonry speaks of "the great Architect of the Universe".  To many, this may appear to be just an alternative name for the Triune God.  However, the teaching of the Bible is that Almighty God is not the architect of the universe, but its Creator!
 
2. Freemasonry expressly forbids the use of the Name of Jesus.  Yet it is only through the Name of Jesus that His disciples have "... boldness and access ..." (Eph.3:12) to approach the Creator.  It is through Him, and Him alone, that we my obtain salvation.  He, and He alone, is the All-sufficient One.

3. Freemasonry is, in essence, occultic and satanic.  One of the most highly-respected Masons of recent times is the late Albert Pike.  He has written: "The Masonic Religion (sic) should be by all of us initiates of the higher degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine ... yes, Lucifer is God." (Maconnerie Universalle, p.588); while another Masonic author writes: "When later he (the Mason) is given Light, it means really that he is taught the principles of Occultism." (Arthur H. Ward; Masonic Symbolism and the Mystic Way; p.149-150)

The Church of Scotland is not, nowadays, renowned for its theological conservative evangelicanism.  However, even that 'broad' church, in a booklet produced by the Panel on Doctrine states, for example, concerning the use of 'prayer' in Freemasonry: "... our complaint is not just that the name of Jesus is suppressed in them, our complaint is that He doesn't seem to be required." (The Church and Freemasonry, p.4).  The main section concludes with the statement: "In the light of the foregoing we invite you to reconsider your involvement in Freemasonry." (p.9).

It is an invitation that is worthy of the most serious consideration.


Lecture