Marriage Matters – letter to MP

Colin Hart of Coalition for Marriage asked for emails / letters to be sent to MP’s. The following is the email I sent today to my MP. Mark Pawsey is actually supportive of traditional marriage but Politicians sometimes need the encouragement – and the backbone – to stick to their principles. To be fair we all need that, it’s easy to buckle when the pressure is on. Pray for grace to stand firm.

Dear Mr Pawsey,

Suggestions for points to make:

• We’ve already seen equality laws being used against people who express support for traditional marriage.
• Foster carers should not be blacklisted by local councils just because they oppose same-sex marriage.
• Religious groups should not be banned from hiring public venues just because they support traditional marriage.
• The Public Sector Equality Duty should not be used to punish those who support traditional marriage, like teachers or other public sector workers.
• True equality should mean fairness, but these days it means imposing political correctness on people.

I have pasted these in as they seem fairly reasonable and I’d ask you to vote against the bill and support the historical and current meaning of marriage.

Maybe those that want to see a change to the definition of marriage would like to consider coming up with their own definition rather than hi-jacking what has been perfectly acceptable for hundreds of years. It’s a bit like wanting to call a circle a square simply because I want it to be so. I do not agree with their lifestyle choice – and it is a choice – but I accept the provision of legislation that will protect same-sex couples in cases of tax and inheritance in the same way sisters that live together might need protection. But I fail to see why Marriage needs to be re-defined in order to achieve it.

The real reason behind this – it seems to me – is to further undermine the Christian faith. Continuing to undermine the Christian principles our Nation has been [founded] upon can only result in disaster for all of us. It will of course create a new minority – if it doesn’t already exist – of Christians and I can’t see the same paradigm shifts taking place to accommodate them, can you.

Thanks for supporting Marriage in the past, please continue to do so.

Kind Regards,

Read Full Post »

Is this Goodbye to Free Speech?

View of the House of Lords Chamber in the Palace of Westminster, London, looking from the galleries towards the Throne (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The second reading of the Same-Sex Marriage bill was passed a couple of weeks ago but I wrote most of this on the day of the vote but for some reason didn’t post it – so here it is!

Will this vote see the end of Free Speech. It should concern any lover of Democracy, that the freedom to disagree with the Same-Sex legislation will end. I believe it will see the beginning of a Witch-Hunt to find and root out ‘deniers’ of Same-Sex Marriage.

Stonewall and other ideological lobby groups will over time entrap unsuspecting believers (Christians)  into saying something that will force a prosecution. This is already happening. Stonewall, I suggest, will not rest until everyone sees Homosexual & Lesbian practice and therefore Same-Sex Marriage as normal.

I haven’t heard or read (please correct me) about any protection for individuals in the work place or any other place for that matter that disagrees or believes that not only same-sex marriages but homosexuality & lesbianism is sinful according to the Bible. There looks to be only protection for Individual Ministers & Religious Organisations (if it happens) but nothing for the ordinary individual Christian, e.g. in the workplace. Not just Christians, but anyone that agrees with the phrase ”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (attributed to Voltaire) ought to be concerned. I’ll certainly be writing to my MP (and PM) again about this.

With Martin Luther then we must surely say:

“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

Where this leaves the Bible in all this will be interesting to see because the Bible teaches the very opposite of what could soon be enshrined in UK Law.

Will the Bible be outlawed? Will some passages of the Bible be outlawed and will those that believe those passages and indeed all the Bible be outlawed?

Where to now? The Bill now passes through to the House of Lords and to further scrutiny by Parliament  There is then – I think – a third reading before it becomes law. The Bill will come under intense critical reading as it moves through the Parliamentary process.  Whether this will be the opportunity to build into legislation protection for those that disagree I can’t say. But to not prosecute ‘deniers’ raises the question about what it was all about in the first place. It seems to me prosecutions will follow.

I do not believe the majority are for this change - but what is more likely to be true is that the majority just can’t be bothered. Apathy.

There is another possible alternative for the Church to think about. Go here to read about it – but basically the Church itself re-defines marriage and calls it Holy Matrimony.

I only heard snippets from the speeches but was struck that some MP’s said or at least implied something like: ‘I don’t believe God would be against same-sex marriage’ or ‘a God of love would not allow same-sex couples in loving relationships to be barred from marriage’ or similar sentiments. But how can anyone presume to speak for God when He has already spoken plainly in His Word the Bible.

Why anyone would want to claim the name of Christian or follower of Jesus and yet completely ignore what He has to say can only be explained by the words of the Apostle Paul as follows:

2 Timothy 3:1-9

1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

2 Timothy 4:3, 8 & 9

New International Version (NIV)
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Read Full Post »

Ideology Strikes again

It’s not often that I’m drop-jawed when listening to the news: but I was about half an hour ago when I heard

A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.

To see more on this story go to BBC News. The story is on the front page of the Daily Telegraph.

For those outside the UK – UKIP is a main-stream political party and the children were removed because of UKIP’s position on Immigration and were seen by Rotheram City council as racist.

My immediate thought on hearing this was this; if a council can do this to a political party what will they do to Christians that have a different view on ‘Marriage’ for example.

If you are a minority that fits with an underlying Anti-Christian program you will be fine – but if not look out! I don’t think UKIP are any more supportive of Christian values that any other of the anti-Christian mainstream but it’s certainly a shot across the bows as councils flex their muscles. We’ll see if Rotherham gets away with it – doubtful this time. But the future looks bleak for this country. I can’t believe how far we have fallen. The US should look on this and beware.

Related articles

• Foster parents ‘stigmatised and slandered’ for being members of Ukip (telegraph.co.uk)
• Foster parents lose three kids from care for being in UKIP (thesun.co.uk)
• UKIP couple lose foster children (bbc.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Definition of ‘Anti-Christ’

 

Mao at Stalin’s side on a ceremony arranged for Stalin’s 70th birthday in Moscow in December 1949.

In the last post I used the term ‘Anti-Christ’ and thought rather than just leave its interpretation a matter for speculation it seemed like a good idea to very briefly supply a definition.

This is probably one of those doctrines that continues to generate large amounts of heat. So if you are looking for someone to debate your take on the issue you will be disappointed. Leave a comment by all means but don’t expect a reply as I’m not getting into a never-ending debate about dates and signs of the end.

So for those that are sitting on the edge of your seats – here it is:

My simple understanding is that when the machinery of the State is used to persecute Christians – there you have the Anti-Christ. We don’t see it as the early Church did with the Emperor Nero, or Stalin, or Chairman Mao: but we do see the beginnings of it albeit in many cases more subtly expressed but in a sense no less powerful. Remember the purpose is to destroy the Church, and if the Church can be made to look ridiculous, or bigoted, unloving, or just fundamentalist nut-jobs it’s perhaps even more successful.

So it’s in the above sense that I use the term Anti-Christ and see no reason for the term not to be used of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, their cronies and of this Parliament.

To counter the spirit of Ant-Christ however, we have the word of the Lord Jesus where He said ‘I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:18). Perhaps our Government will have a short-lived success but in the end it will be the Lord Jesus that will prevail – Praise God!

 

Read Full Post »

Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 2

Continued from Part 1. I begin with the final quote from Stephen’s lecture manuscript.

And so, late in 1660 “Foreseeing clouds to gather blackness over these nations and the Lord in the way of his Providence to threaten his churches and interest with a flood of trouble and persecution, both Mr Ashwood with the rest, endeavoured to incorporate themselves into one body before the storm did fall”.

English: Nick Clegg and other MPs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The point I would wish to make – and did discuss with Stephen after the lecture – is the fact we are seeing a very similar set of circumstances evolve before our eyes.

We have been told by the Prime Minister that Churches need not fear. But, we should not forget that David Cameron is first and foremost a politician and an opponent of the Gospel of Christ. He has no interest in Evangelical Doctrine except where it will further his interests. And, let’s also remind ourselves that just like Charles II Cameron will have ‘to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his’ Election as PM. This of course includes the Liberal Democrats led by the ungodly opposer of all that is sacred, Nick Clegg.

And so we find the following story:

A local councillor for the Green Party in Brighton is facing disciplinary action for refusing to vote in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ in a local council meeting last week.

Christina Summers, a committed Christian, has been the target of abusive emails since making her view known, some suggesting she is mentally ill or describing her as a fascist.

She has made it clear she is “accountable to God above any political party” but Green Party members are looking for her to be expelled.

Go HERE for full story and media links. So much for Freedom of Speech there then!

And just the other day David Cameron not unexpectedly has said about Homosexuality, that ‘CAMERON ACCUSES THE CHURCH OF ‘LOCKING OUT’ GAYS, AND SAYS HE’S FOLLOWING BLAIR’S LEAD‘. I’d like to point out that the true Church does not lock out gays and never has. In fact we want them to come in and call upon God in faith and repentance just like any other sinner.

And again from Cameron – with encouragement from Nick Clegg no doubt – this story:  David Cameron “absolutely determined” to introduce ‘gay marriage’ by 2015. Go HERE for full story and media links. Here’s the fist two paragraphs:

David Cameron announced last night that he is determined to legislate for ‘same-sex marriage’ by 2015 and directly attacked the mainstream churches’ position on the issue.

Meanwhile, in a separate development, the Scottish Government this morning (25 JULY) announced that it intends to bring forward a bill introducing same-sex marriage in spite of strong opposition to the plans expressed in a recent consultation on the issue.

As Evangelical Christians we should prepare ourselves for the coming storm. It’s a time to Trust God as the dark clouds gather and ungodly policies are forced through the legal system. They have no justification for these ungodly policies other than that – they are ungodly and anti-Christ. They are the anti-Christ. If they were seekers after truth they wold not be able propagate their anti-Biblical, anti-Christ policies since without the Christian God there is no truth at all!

The conclusion of the above is – and we shouldn’t be surprised at this – the Government cannot be trusted just as it was back in 1660!

The days are upon us when Freedom of Speech is tottering over the Abyss. Why God has brought this upon I cannot say – but now is the time to ‘quit you like men’ and trust in God.

The government will do what the government will do, but will I have the freedom to disagree and call their policies ungodly. That’s the question. So far though, I do have the freedom to cast my vote with whichever party I choose – or none, At the moment it will be none, but definitely not one of the three main parties of the Greens.

Read Full Post »

Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 1

Back in March the relevance of one of the History Lectures is just too much to pass over. Here’s a direct lesson for us from the history of our own country. I’m very grateful to Stephen Rees for permission to quote from his lecture manuscript. I’ve edited it very slightly and the emphases in bold italics and brackets are mine, but here are a few quotations from the lecture to set the context:

…. Cromwell didn’t remove the concept of a state church.  What he did was to insist the state church must be as flexible as possible – he wanted there to be room for almost any group of truly evangelical Christians to worship within the state church according to their own convictions.  The way it worked was this.  He appointed a committee of 38 men known as the Triers.  A church – or any group of believers could put forward a man as a candidate to be recognised as the local minister.   And the Triers tried him – they assessed his suitability.  The only qualifications were that the candidate must be evangelical in doctrine and show evidence of a godly life.  It didn’t matter if he were a presbyterian or an independent, or a baptist or a fifth-monarchy man.  He could be appointed as minister of the local parish church – the local Church of England – he could be supported by public taxes, and he could lead the congregation according to his own convictions (My note: ‘his own convictions’ means according to the Bible).  Many Anglican ministers were ejected from their churches by local committees, because of their ungodly lives or non-evangelical doctrine – and evangelical men were installed by the Triers in their places.

(My Note: This system of appointed ‘Triers’ presupposed a disposition not only towards the truth of the Word of God (The Bible) but also to the belief that such a thing as The Truth existed. This is not so today. And nowhere is this seen so clearly than in our National leaders. What’s on show in the State Church and in Politicians is sheer unadulterated relativism.)

And this was the way that Bartholomew Ashwood, at the age of 38 came to Axminster.  Though he was operating within the state church, he had freedom for a little while to lead the church according to thoroughly Puritan, evangelical principles and to conduct worship according to his convictions.

But he knew that that freedom couldn’t last very long.  Why not?  Because in 1658 – since Ashwood had been admitted by the Triers, Cromwell had died.  Now the country was on the point of calling Charles II back from exile.  And Charles came from the line of the Stuarts who had persecuted consistent Puritans in England through two reigns.  Before he was brought back from exile, Charles II promised that he would allow religious freedom – “liberty to tender consciences”.  But men like Ashwood had no confidence at all in that sort of promise.  He was very well aware that freedom might be very short-lived.  Apart from anything else, whatever he promised, Charles would have very little freedom himself.  He (Charles) had to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his return.

Ashwood and his friends were convinced independents, believing that each church should be a company of believers, governed by its members under the Word (The Bible).  Whether they were separatists, I think is unclear.  It may be that if Ashwood had been free to build such an independent church “according to gospel rule and the pure institution of the Lord Jesus” yet remain within the overall structure of the state church, he would have chosen that option.  But in any case he knew that that option was going to cease to exist.

This post is getting a bit long – So I’ll end it here. Link to Part 2.

Read Full Post »

Wearing the Cross or Preaching the Cross?

Millions of people all over the world wear a cross. A lady here in the UK has been ordered not to wear her cross at work. There is a campaign running and according to the campaigners the case has received considerable media coverage highlighting freedom of expression and the freedom to wear symbols of the Christian faith.

I received an email linking to the campaign. Here’s some of the blurb from the Not Ashamed of the Cross Website:

act now to protect christian freedoms.

Shirley Chaplin was barred from wearing her confirmation cross after nearly thirty years in front line nursing. Now hers is one of four landmark Christian freedom cases going to the European Court of Human Rights. Yet the British Government is not supporting Shirley and has even suggested that the cross is not a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith.

Please contact the PM and your MP to urge the Government to support Shirley and historic Christian freedoms.

The cross is undeniably a symbol of the Christian faith but wearing one round the neck isn’t. And neither is wearing one a requirement of the Christian faith. I do not find a text anywhere in the Bible that says wearing one is either a symbol of the Christian faith or that wearing one is required of Christians. So on the one hand the campaign is laudable especially in terms of free speech yet on the other it completely – or potentially - misrepresents the Cross of Christ.

What the Bible does speak about very clearly is the ‘Offence of the Cross’. This explicitly refers to the Preaching of the Cross – and it’s this preaching of the Cross that is so hugely offensive to the natural man. My fear about this campaign – I’m aware good people will be involved – is that it may protect the freedom to wear one as a Christian symbol but forbid the preaching of the Cross itself. Why is this so?

We must not and we cannot confuse the cross as a symbol (worn around the neck) and the Preaching of the Cross as revealed to us in the Bible. I’m certainly not ashamed of the cross but wearing it round the neck has nothing at all to do with the Christian faith – that is the Gospel of Christ.

The message of the Cross of Christ tells us very clearly that God Himself has provided the only unique means whereby sinners may be saved from the wrath of God. To first century Jews and Gentiles (everybody else) this message was massively offensive and it is no less so today.

I also fear the campaign at best will give Christians the freedom to wear their faith symbol in the marketplace of ideas, in a society that propagates diversity and where all religions are equal – which of course they are not. Christianity is either true or it isn’t. And as it is in fact the truth ALL other religions are false. Modern sensibilities will not allow this, but is what people and governments need to hear but do not want to hear and will not listen.

What was the cross? It was an instrument of torture, of brutality, of humiliation, of utter degradation! It was a place reserved for criminals, a place of excruciating agony and a place of bloody agonising death! This is the true Cross where my dear Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ stood in my place to suffer the wrath of God upon His holy and righteous soul. The Cross is the only way of Salvation, there is no other! We are either saved by the cross of Christ or not at all.

The Apostle Paul said, ‘For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God’ (1Co 1:18). It’s the word or the message of the cross not a symbol that’s needed.

If Shirley wins her case and is allowed to wear her cross, how will this advance the Gospel? I think not at all. I wish her well, I wish the campaign well, but I believe it’s a backward step as far as the Gospel of Christ is concerned. Let us therefore not be ashamed of the preaching of the Gospel and as God gives us opportunity let us speak of this cross, this place of propitiation.

Read Full Post »

Gay, No Gay, Ex Gay Bus Campaigns

Listening again to the tortuous BBC Radio 4 Sunday program where during the last item a lively discussion took place about the Gay / Ex Gay bus campaigns. As seems the norm these days Free Speech only seems to work one way – in opposition to Christianity. I can do no better than point you to Archbishop Cranmer for two excellent posts.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/christians-fight-back-on-stonewalls.html

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/stonewall-cries-bigotry-and-grabs-boris.html

If you can stomach it go to the BBC for more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17693947

Read Full Post »

SteynOnline – Lars man standing – again

SteynOnline – Lars man standing – again.

Here’s a short extract:

…multiculturalism is merely an interim phase, a once useful cover for an Islamic imperialism so confident it now barely needs one. The good news is that European prosecutors are doing such a grand job with their pilot program of show trials you’ll hardly notice the difference when sharia is formally instituted.

Read Full Post »