An Intolerant "Tolerance"?

The problem with tolerating all views is that it does not work in practice. This is clearly seen when the views of a vocal but powerful lobby seeks to assert itself against mainstream opinion. The only way it can succeed is by the suppression of dissent- even if that dissent is the age old orthodoxy of the very society that is allowing the minority view in the first place.
As postmodernism canonises all views as equally valid, the only views which cannot be accepted are those such as Christianity that make exclusive truth claims.
The following artice from the Daily Mail gives an interesting and frightening case in point.

A law that turns sexual tolerance into tyranny

By MELANIE PHILLIPS, Daily Mail 19th June 2006


Would anyone ever have imagined that one day it would become illegal in Britain to teach children to follow precepts laid down in the Bible?

Or that a priest, a rabbi or an imam might fall foul of the law by refusing to bless a sexual union between same-sex couples?

Yet that appears to be precisely what may happen as a result of new regulations soon to be introduced by the Government - and all under the rubric, would you believe, of producing a more tolerant and free society.

The Government has just finished consulting on new draft regulations under the Equality Act that would make it illegal to refuse to provide goods or services to anyone on the grounds of sexual orientation. The ostensible aim of these provisions is to end discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. No one should support irrational and bigoted prejudice against these or any other minorities.

But one of the unforeseen side-effects of anti-discrimination laws is the way they have turned our very understanding of prejudice and discrimination inside-out. Starting with the entirely laudable objective of eradicating discrimination against minorities, they have been transformed instead into a weapon promoting discrimination against both majority and minority religious faiths.

It should go without saying that gay people and other sexual minorities should be free to practice their sexuality without being picked on in any way. What they do in private should be of concern to no one else. But equally, others must be free to voice disapproval of their lifestyles, particularly where this is a key element of religious faith. For like it or not (and this is, of course, an issue which is currently tearing the Church of England apart) the belief that homosexual behaviour is wrong is a tenet that is fundamental to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Impossible

The new regulations, however, would make it impossible for Christians, Jews and Muslims to continue to live according to this belief.

This is because, although religious faiths gained an exemption under the Equality Act itself, which otherwise would have threatened to outlaw the promotion of religion altogether, no such exemption has been granted over the issue of sexual orientation - which also covers sexual behaviour.

So church schools, for example, are protesting that they will no longer be permitted to teach in sex education or RE lessons that homosexuality is at odds with the teachings of the Bible. They might have to comply with parental demands that there should be lessons promoting gay issues - for example, by taking part in the recent 'Lesbian, Bi-sexual Gay and Transsexual History Month'.

Remember the epic battle over Clause 28, the law which forbade the promotion of homosexuality in schools and which was eventually repealed, in a notable triumph for the gay rights lobby? Well, these new regulations would be a Clause 28 in reverse. They would compel the promotion of homosexuality in schools - and forbid the promotion of Christian or other religious beliefs on the matter.

Lawyers say that the regulations would mean churches, mosques or synagogues would be breaking the law if they refused to hire out their halls for gay civil partnership ceremonies. Clergymen would be compelled to bless 'gay marriages' on pain of breaking the law. It might even become illegal for a priest to refuse to give communion to someone on the grounds that they were a practicing gay or lesbian.

In other words, it would become an act of illegality to put into practice a cardinal tenet of religious faith, including the Christianity that is the established faith of this country and which underpins its values and lies at the very core of its identity.

We have therefore exchanged one deep intolerance for another. Behaviour that was once considered socially unacceptable and even illegal must now be promoted as an acceptable lifestyle choice, and anyone who disagrees is to fall foul of the law instead.

Yes, gays and other sexual minorities should have full equality before the law. But that means they should not be treated aggressively or unfairly by being singled out for different treatment in areas of life where they are playing the same part as everyone else.

But the equality argument breaks down when it insists that everyone is entitled to receive precisely the same treatment despite the fact that their lifestyles may be radically different. This is not equality, but what might be called 'identicality', or the enforcement of sameness even where circumstances are not the same at all.

Far from being fair, this is both fundamentally unfair and socially destructive. By insisting that sexual minorities are treated in an identical fashion to the majority, mainstream values are knocked off their perch.

That is why the antidiscrimination agenda is actually a weapon aimed squarely at the bedrock values of this society.

That is the problem with the gay rights programme. It does not preach tolerance for gays; instead, it stands for the destruction of the very notion that heterosexuality is the norm.

That is why 'gay marriage' or civil union represents such a threat to our society. Under the attractive guise of promoting equality, it actually represents an attempt to undermine the special status in our society of a permanent, faithful sexual union between a man and a woman.

And that is why David Cameron's reported views are so disappointing. In a speech this week, Mr Cameron - who once again wrapped himself in the mantle of family man yesterday and spoke of finding new ways to support family life - is expected to say he would give gay couples the same rights as heterosexuals, including the same tax perks for civil partnerships as there are for marriage.

Mr Cameron wants to convey the message that the Tories are no longer prejudiced against gay people. Nor should they be. But is supporting a policy that undermines family life the best way to go about this? Is he really saying that gay partnerships are the same in value as heterosexual marriage? Is he really saying that two gay men raising children is equivalent in value to a mother and father raising their own?

What would he say, for example, about the former chairman of the South Yorkshire Family Panel, who resigned because he was told he had to approve the same-sex adoption of children? He sought a compromise under which he would adjudicate only on cases of heterosexual adoption, but was refused.

He is now suing the Lord Chancellor's department, arguing that his right to act on his conscience and his religious beliefs have been infringed.

His case perfectly illustrates the grotesque situation we are now in, where under the guise of preventing discrimination, the state is actually enforcing discrimination against someone who merely wants to provide children with the healthiest environment in which to grow up.

The equality agenda is presented as ushering in a new era of tolerance and equality. But this is not so. Instead, it has elevated the rights of sexual minorities above the rights of religious believers.

This is because it is a specific attempt to secularise our society. Religious belief is thus relabelled as prejudice and duly outlawed.

But religious freedom and freedom of conscience are crucial to a liberal society. Once, religious wars took them away. Now they are being stamped out by secular law - and with them goes the bedrock of our liberty.

The Emergent "Bible"

I came across this today and I thought it so relevant that I needed to share it. It deals with how the emergent movement just might treat the difficult passages of scripture-laugh and weep!

The Emergent Elijah
by David Green

I found this wonderful article web-surfing the other day. There is much truth in David Green's words about Mr. McLaren's emergent philosophy. I highly commend it to you. -Steve


What if the Emergent Church crowd could re-write some of the “mean” parts of the Bible? What would it look like? The following is an account from the story of Elijah & the prophets of Baal. Much of the narrative is from actual things Brian McLaren has written in his books (McLaren is one of the main advocates of the “emergents”).

Elijah said to Ahab, "You have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and you have followed Baal. Although I don't agree with that decision, I can't condemn it. After all, no one has all the truth. I understand that Israel has some truth and so does the religion of Baal. We're all seekers of ultimate truth. Therefore, let us unite with the prophets of Baal. Now then send and gather to me all Israel at Mount Carmel, together with 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table. And let us all have a conversation" (I Kings 18:18-19).

So Ahab sent a message among all the sons of Israel, and brought the prophets together at Mount Carmel. And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will we hesitate between two opinions? Forever, I say! The Lord might be God, or Baal might be God. We all have our own personal opinion as to who God is, but let's face it: We might be wrong. So let us be open to Baal. Remember, Judge not lest ye be judged!" But the people did not answer him a word (I Kings 18:20-21).

Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the Lord, but Baal's prophets are 450 men. I'm not saying this proves that Baal is the true God, but it is a powerful argument for Baal, wouldn't you agree? So let's be open to what the prophets of Baal have to teach us.” (I Kings 18:22).

"Now ---- it, I know that some of you have proposed that we put Baal to the test and see if either Baal or Yahweh will give us a sign from heaven. But this is wrong. Even if fire came down from heaven, that wouldn't prove anything. If we thought that fire proved that Yahweh was the true God, we would be arrogant. Our certainty would be based on evidence that could easily be explained by natural phenomenon. So instead of having the arrogance of certainty, let us instead have a humble conversation and unite in the unity of love with the prophets of Baal." And all the people answered Elijah and said, "That is a good idea" (I Kings 18:23-24).

So Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "We respect your beliefs, prophets of Baal. We Israelites do not have absolute certainty about the God of Israel. In truth, we might be wrong. We're only relatively certain that we're onto something when we worship Yahweh. Therefore we don't judge you when you call out to Baal or when you cut yourselves with swords and lances until blood gushes out. Additionally, we don't believe that Yahweh is at war with Baal. God has not called his followers to gain victory or to triumph over his enemies. Yahweh does not want us to conquer the hearts of men through evangelism. "Conquest" is a trait of evil, white, European, male Christianity. We're above and beyond such mean-spirited hurtfulness" (I Kings 18:25-29).

Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come near to me." So all the people came near to him. And he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. And Elijah took the same number stones as there are world religions, and he said, "To the prophets of Baal and to all sincere worshipers of deities, we unite with you in true love and unity. The lion is lying down with the lamb. Amen?" (I Kings 18:30-39).

Then Elijah said to the people, "Shake hands with the prophets of Baal. Hug them as your spiritual brothers”. So they hugged them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and made them members of his church. (I Kings 18:40).

A Wretch like Me!

Billions are being spent by education and social services to lift our self esteem. It is worse than futile. it is positively harmful! God's Word says that it is in admitting that we are sinners that the door to salvation opens. 1John 1:9 tells us: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." John Newton humbly described himself in Amazing Grace as "a wretch like me". He could have been talking about any of us . Instead of creating a generation of self righteous pharisees do we not need to return to a healthy biblical view of self. The Bible reminds us who we really are. But it is Good News. God meets us as we really are but he refuses to leave us as we are. Here is what CH Spurgeon had to say in this mornings reading from "Morning & Evening".

June 6, Morning

"Behold, I am vile." Job 40:4

One cheering word, poor lost sinner, for thee! You think you must not come to God because you are vile. Now, there is not a saint living on earth but has been made to feel that he is vile. If Job, and Isaiah, and Paul were all obliged to say "I am vile", oh, poor sinner, wilt thou be ashamed to join in the same confession? If divine grace does not eradicate all sin from the believer, how dost thou hope to do it thyself? And if God loves his people while they are yet vile, dost thou think thy vileness will prevent his loving thee? Believe on Jesus, thou outcast of the world's society! Jesus calls thee, and such as thou art.

"Not the righteous, not the righteous;
Sinners, Jesus came to call."

Even now say, "Thou hast died for sinners; I am a sinner, Lord Jesus, sprinkle thy blood on me;" if thou wilt confess thy sin thou shalt find pardon. If, now, with all thy heart, thou wilt say, "I am vile, wash me", thou shalt be washed now. If the Holy Spirit shall enable thee from thy heart to cry

"Just as I am, without one plea
But that thy blood was shed for me,
And that thou bidd'st me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come!"

thou shalt rise from reading this morning's portion with all thy sins pardoned; and though thou didst wake this morning with every sin that man hath ever committed on thy head, thou shalt rest tonight accepted in the Beloved; though once degraded with the rags of sin, thou shalt be adorned with a robe of righteousness, and appear white as the angels are. For "now", mark it, "Now is the accepted time." If thou "believest on him who justifieth the ungodly thou art saved." Oh! may the Holy Spirit give thee saving faith in him who receives the vilest.

Mr A has made us face some uncomfortable facts

I don't know if Mary Leland of the Sunday Independent has ever read the Biblical proverb "Train up a child in the way it should go and when it is old it will not depart from it" Proverbs 22:6. Her article in this weeks edition however is sober reading for a society that thinks it can have "Sexual Freedom" and protect it's children along the way. Here it is

"We are all guilty of the sexualisation of our young children"



I SIMPLY can't get too worked up about it. In fact, I can't get worked up about it at all, this hysterical fusillade of abuse at the Government, the judiciary, the courts and anyone else at all in the wake of last week's Supreme Court ruling on the offence of carnal knowledge of a minor.

In the first place, I couldn't get outraged because the legal issue was no sooner identified than it was lost in a welter of scatter-gun abuse. Here was a matter which had to be defined before it could be interpreted, and in neither case was the Irish public well served by its media. It's true that the Supreme Court's decision is a complex argument simplified to its most austere significance: Section 1 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1935, under which it is an offence to have sex with a girl under 15, has been declared unconstitutional from its origin and as a result was not translated into law and therefore - cutting to the quick - did not, and does not, exist. So anyone convicted under that section was wrongfully convicted and wrongfully detained. A bad law has been struck down.

Does this mean that our streets will shortly be steaming with men rampant with lust for teenage virgins, or indeed, for even younger girls? It does not. When will we have a little bit of common sense? Or a little bit of self-respect? But even if such were the case, I believe that we would have no one to blame but ourselves. I speak now in my David Cameron alter ego; like the Tory leader I have been made more and more aware of our own willing sexualisation of children, especially of girls.

I speak as the stunned old bat flapping about in Eason's, asking out loud why on earth young well-dressed and well-spoken mothers should be purchasing for their first-year daughters school stationery loudly decorated with Bunny Girl images, paying over money which goes to Hugh Hefner, colluding in a commercial enterprise which glamorises prostitution and runs on the organised exploitation of women.

I have seen pre-teen girls wearing clothes with logos which would shame a hooker skipping happily alongside their parents. With (and even without) the warm weather, 10- and 12-year olds strut about the country in jeans and shorts sheared down to the pubic bone. Skirts as short as peplums swivel around adolescent backsides, swirling with an invitation which must never be accepted. To buy the daily paper, to buy a school copybook, is to run a pornographic gauntlet of magazines placed within easy reach of today's well-fed pre-teens. For many, even the daily paper itself - one UK tabloid is owned by a known pornographer - offers sexual titillation as casually as a cup of breakfast coffee. We are running "say no" programmes in our schools, and dressing our children like little whores.

We tolerate - we even encourage - the notion of ordinary life as a supermarket of sex. Everything is on

'We are dressing our children like little whores'

display. How can we pretend that this means that everything is not for sale or for stealing? With so much young flesh polished and put out on show how can we imagine that there won't be someone, somewhere, sometime unable to resist the allure?

It's not that we should insist on burkas for our youngsters, but we should insist on some restraint, or some sense of what is appropriate to age and occasion. We are slow to insist on anything now - except on the faults of others and the imperatives of reparation. A Dublin computer technician has been convicted of possession of child pornography of stunning depravity, depicting the suffering, fear and degradation of children as young as two. Do we ask ourselves - where does this come from? Who are these children? And above all, how is the appetite for such material and such gratification aroused in the first place?

This is the dark and dangerous side of a healthy sexual nature. We ignore it because it interferes with our comforting ideas of sex as funny, warming, satisfying and more or less readily available. And for most of us, it is all of those things, with the exception of the last. But to tolerate sex as commonplace and indiscriminate is to invite trouble. Which is what we have, although not quite as we imagine it to be.

The trouble, the real trouble, lies not with the law or the Supreme Court or even Mr 'A' and his like, but with ourselves. It is what we accept as normal which defines the limits both to the law and to our lives. It is our responsibility, and no one else's, to make those definitions both protective and demonstrable, clearly understood by our children and by those who come in contact with them, and endorsed rather than invented by the laws of the land.

Mary Leland

Pacifism is not an option!

Well that got your attention. Of course one of the areas that Christians have genuinely disagreed over is whether or not we can legitimately bear arms. One war however is not optional. You see this war takes place inside of us and pacifism is treason. That war is the war between "the flesh and the spirit". It is the unavoidable conflict between what God would have me be and what I otherwise would be apart from Him . This war is not optional for any true believer. Here is what CH Spurgeon had to say in his " Morning & Evening " for this morning.

"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh."
-- Galatians 5:17

In every believer's heart there is a constant struggle between the old
nature and the new. The old nature is very active, and loses no
opportunity of plying all the weapons of its deadly armoury against
newborn grace; while on the other hand, the new nature is ever on the
watch to resist and destroy its enemy. Grace within us will employ
prayer, and faith, and hope, and love, to cast out the evil; it takes
unto it the "whole armour of God," and wrestles earnestly. These two
opposing natures will never cease to struggle so long as we are in this
world. The battle of "Christian" with "Apollyon" lasted three hours,
but the battle of Christian with himself lasted all the way from the
Wicket Gate in the river Jordan. The enemy is so securely entrenched
within us that he can never be driven out while we are in this body:
but although we are closely beset, and often in sore conflict, we have
an Almighty helper, even Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, who is
ever with us, and who assures us that we shall eventually come off more
than conquerors through him. With such assistance the new-born nature
is more than a match for its foes. Are you fighting with the adversary
to-day? Are Satan, the world, and the flesh, all against you? Be not
discouraged nor dismayed. Fight on! For God himself is with you;
Jehovah Nissi is your banner, and Jehovah Rophi is the healer of your
wounds. Fear not, you shall overcome, for who can defeat Omnipotence?
Fight on, "looking unto Jesus"; and though long and stern be the
conflict, sweet will be the victory, and glorious the promised reward.

"From strength to strength go on;
Wrestle, and fight, and pray,
Tread all the powers of darkness down,
And win the well-fought day."

What is Worship?

A search of Google brought up 93, 900,00 answers for this question. Obviously a lot of people have contributed sites etc on the topic of worship!
The great 16th century reformer John Calvin had much to say about worship. Here is an extract from his tract of 1544 titled
"The Necessity of Reforming the Church." Read and be challenged!

The rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunction of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie.