Food for His sheep

Why I think Norris will lose

2011-08-01T12:21:00.004+01:00

As I write the chances of David Norris being nominated for the ballot, never mind being elected as Irish President are fading fast. It is all so far away from the "dream candidacy" that he seemed to exemplify as little as a week ago. Having weathered the storm over his interview with Helen Lucy Burke - in which he questioned the very idea of an age of consent for sexual activity, as well as seeming to approve of the pagan Greeks practice of pederasty- he appeared invincible. He may however have fallen victim to another ancient Greek idea: hubris. The irony is that for a veteran campaigner in the cause of homosexual rights he may have unwittingly exposed to public view those practices within the homosexual lifestyle that the friendly media endeavour to keep hidden. After all his former partner was merely engaging in the very practice that Senator Norris found so appealing among the ancient Greeks- a middle aged man grooming a younger teenager for sexual activity. Today we call it statutory rape. If his ill fated campaign forces into public view, and rational debate the issue of the homosexual lifestyle, then he will have inadvertently "done the state some service"

2008-03-25T09:46:00.003Z

Is Wright ....right?

Let’s face it it’s not often a pastor makes front page news . If we do it is usually not for the right reason. Rev Jeremiah Wright sadly is not the exception to prove the rule. Wright who pastors an African American “Mega Church” in Chicago, is the spiritual mentor of leading Democrat candidate for the US Presidency, Senator Barak Obama. Sections of his sermons posted on the internet have raised grave and possibly fatal questions regarding the judgement of Senator Obama. As a pastor however I feel it raises more fundamental questions on the role of the ministry itself.

There is no doubt that the Christian ministry if served faithfully is not about making people comfortable. The old saying has a lot of truth to it: The ministry exists “To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”. Rev Wright is not to be condemned because he sought to make people feel uncomfortable. The real issue is that he made the wrong people feel uncomfortable! The easy option- which I believe he took- was to be “cheer leader” for his own community rather than God’s prophet of uncomfortable truth to them.

The issue of how as Christian we respond to those from whom we are divided is a crucial one. It is one for example we here in Ireland have had to face. It is also one which is at the heart of the New Testament. Getting it right is a defining factor in establishing the essential credibility of any christian ministry.

The issue of race relations has been and continues to be such an issue in the United States. Pastors on both sides of the divide can either pander to people’s grievances make them “feel good about themselves” or challenge them to reach for the difficult and sometimes impossible goal of being radically different. The first option only takes rhetoric. The latter takes the grace of God and a willingness to be rejected by one’s own community if necessary. Which did Jesus take? Which did Paul take? Which reaches people with a power greater than themselves to make them more than they ever thought they could be? I think we know the answer.

As an outsider looking in I think the black community in America desperately needs pastors of the latter quality. The ghetto mentality needs to be questioned and abandoned. The deadly comfort of the welfare trap needs to be exposed for what it is and rejected. Above all the gospel of Jesus Christ in which there is “ now neither Jew nor Gentile, slave or free male or female but in which all are one in christ Jesus” - needs to be powerfully preached. It needs to be preached with a willingness to pay the price of rejection and ridicule. The black community needs to be truly evangelised and pastored, not patronised. There are thankfully a growing number of black ministers who are quietly doing just that. You will not see them on You Tube or hear about them on CNN. But thank God for them. Soon maybe sooner than we think the Rev Wrights and Louis Farrakhans will be as marginalised in the black community as the Aryan Nation and the KKK are in the white community. It cannot be too soon.

2008-03-22T15:43:00.004Z

The Message of Easter

It's Easter. But what does it mean? To many it is simply another welcome break from work No doubt to many of the children -and not a few adults- it is a time to indulge in lots of chocolate!
But for Christians it means remembering the very foundation of our faith. Jesus conquered death! He died for or sins but he did no stay dead. As Peter preached on the day of Pentecost
" It was impossible that death should hold Him!" Yet this very foundation is a stumbling block to many. As a former agnostic, it was coming to terms with the reality of the Resurrection that brought me to believe in Jesus and receive the forgiveness that He offers.
Do you believe in His Resurrection? The well known American pastor John Piper gives 8 good reasons why you should. Take a few minute to read them - and my God bring you to His living Son before this day is over!

S. Murphy

Eight Reasons Why I Believe That Jesus Rose from the Dead

John Piper

1. Jesus himself testified to his coming resurrection from the dead.

Jesus spoke openly about what would happen to him: crucifixion and then resurrection from the dead. “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31; see also Matthew 17:22; Luke 9:22). Those who consider the resurrection of Christ unbelievable will probably say that Jesus was deluded or (more likely) that the early church put these statements in his mouth to make him teach the falsehood that they themselves conceived. But those who read the Gospels and come to the considered conviction that the one who speaks so compellingly through these witnesses is not the figment of foolish imagination will be unsatisfied with this effort to explain away Jesus’ own testimony to his resurrection from the dead.

This is especially true in view of the fact that the words which predict the resurrection are not only the simple straightforward words quoted above, but also the very oblique and indirect words which are far less likely to be the simple invention of deluded disciples. For example, two separate witnesses testify in two very different ways to Jesus’ statement during his lifetime that if his enemies destroyed the temple (of his body), he would build it again in three days (John 2:19; Mark 14:58; cf. Matthew 26:61). He also spoke illusively of the “sign of Jonah” — three days in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:39; 16:4). And he hinted at it again in Matthew 21:42 — “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.” On top of his own witness to the coming resurrection, his accusers said that this was part of Jesus’ claim: “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise’” (Matthew 27:63).

Our first evidence of the resurrection, therefore, is that Jesus himself spoke of it. The breadth and nature of the sayings make it unlikely that a deluded church made these up. And the character of Jesus himself, revealed in these witnesses, has not been judged by most people to be a lunatic or a deceiver.

2. The tomb was empty on Easter.

The earliest documents claim this: “When they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus” (Luke 24:3). And the enemies of Jesus confirmed it by claiming that the disciples had stolen the body (Matthew 28:13). The dead body of Jesus could not be found. There are four possible ways to account for this.

2.1 His foes stole the body. If they did (and they never claimed to have done so), they surely would have produced the body to stop the successful spread of the Christian faith in the very city where the crucifixion occurred. But they could not produce it.

2.2 His friends stole the body. This was an early rumor (Matthew 28:11-15). Is it probable? Could they have overcome the guards at the tomb? More important, would they have begun to preach with such authority that Jesus was raised, knowing that he was not? Would they have risked their lives and accepted beatings for something they knew was a fraud?

2.3 Jesus was not dead, but only unconscious when they laid him in the tomb. He awoke, removed the stone, overcame the soldiers, and vanished from history after a few meetings with his disciples in which he convinced them he was risen from the dead. Even the foes of Jesus did not try this line. He was obviously dead. The Romans saw to that. The stone could not be moved by one man from within who had just been stabbed in the side by a spear and spent six hours nailed to a cross.

2.4 God raised Jesus from the dead. This is what he said would happen. It is what the disciples said did happen. But as long as there is a remote possibility of explaining the resurrection naturalistically, modern people say we should not jump to a supernatural explanation. Is this reasonable? I don’t think so. Of course, we don’t want to be gullible. But neither do we want to reject the truth just because it’s strange. We need to be aware that our commitments at this point are much affected by our preferences — either for the state of affairs that would arise from the truth of the resurrection, or for the state of affairs that would arise from the falsehood of the resurrection. If the message of Jesus has opened you to the reality of God and the need of forgiveness, for example, then anti-supernatural dogma might lose its power over your mind. Could it be that this openness is not prejudice for the resurrection, but freedom from prejudice against it?

3. The disciples were almost immediately transformed from men who were hopeless and fearful after the crucifixion (Luke 24:21, John 20:19) into men who were confident and bold witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:2).

Their explanation of this change was that they had seen the risen Christ and had been authorized to be his witnesses (Acts 2:32). The most popular competing explanation is that their confidence was owing to hallucinations. There are numerous problems with such a notion. The disciples were not gullible, but level-headed skeptics both before and after the resurrection (Mark 9:32, Luke 24:11, John 20:8-9, 25). Moreover, is the deep and noble teaching of those who witnessed the risen Christ the stuff of which hallucinations are made? What about Paul’s great letter to the Romans? I personally find it hard to think of this giant intellect and deeply transparent soul as deluded or deceptive, and he claimed to have seen the risen Christ.

4. Paul claimed that, not only had he seen the risen Christ, but that 500 others had seen him also, and many were still alive when he made this public claim.

“Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:6). What makes this so relevant is that this was written to Greeks who were skeptical of such claims when many of these witnesses were still alive. So it was a risky claim if it could be disproved by a little firsthand research.

5. The sheer existence of a thriving, empire-conquering early Christian church supports the truth of the resurrection claim.

The church spread on the power of the testimony that Jesus was raised from the dead and that God had thus made him both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). The Lordship of Christ over all nations is based on his victory over death. This is the message that spread all over the world. Its power to cross cultures and create one new people of God was a strong testimony of its truth.

6. The Apostle Paul’s conversion supports the truth of the resurrection.

He argues to a partially unsympathetic audience in Galatians 1:11-17 that his gospel comes from the risen Jesus Christ, not from men. His argument is that before his Damascus Road experience when he saw the risen Jesus, he was violently opposed to the Christian faith (Acts 9:1). But now, to everyone’s astonishment, he is risking his life for the gospel (Acts 9:24-25). His explanation: The risen Jesus appeared to him and authorized him to spearhead the Gentile mission (Acts 26:15-18). Can we credit such a testimony? This leads to the next argument.

7. The New Testament witnesses do not bear the stamp of dupes or deceivers.

How do you credit a witness? How do you decide whether to believe a person’s testimony? The decision to give credence to a person’s testimony is not the same as completing a mathematical equation. The certainty is of a different kind, yet can be just as firm (I trust my wife’s testimony that she is faithful). When a witness is dead, we can base our judgment of him only on the content of his writings and the testimonies of others about him. How do Peter and John and Matthew and Paul stack up?

In my judgment (and at this point we can live authentically only by our own judgment—Luke 12:57), these men’s writings do not read like the works of gullible, easily deceived or deceiving men. Their insights into human nature are profound. Their personal commitment is sober and carefully stated. Their teachings are coherent and do not look like the invention of unstable men. The moral and spiritual standard is high. And the lives of these men are totally devoted to the truth and to the honor of God.

8. There is a self-authenticating glory in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection as narrated by the biblical witnesses.

The New Testament teaches that God sent the Holy Spirit to glorify Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.... He will glorify me” (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit does not do this by telling us that Jesus rose from the dead. He does it by opening our eyes to see the self-authenticating glory of Christ in the narrative of his life and death and resurrection. He enables us to see Jesus as he really was, so that he is irresistibly true and beautiful. The apostle stated the problem of our blindness and the solution like this: “The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.... For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4, 6).

A saving knowledge of Christ crucified and risen is not the mere result of right reasoning about historical facts. It is the result of spiritual illumination to see those facts for what they really are: a revelation of the truth and glory of God in the face of Christ — who is the same yesterday today and forever.

Do I trust Him?

2008-03-19T15:31:00.002Z

There are some things that we simply assume are so. If I call myself a Christian I assume I believe. Of course one cannot be a Christian without believing certain things -the deity of Jesus, His sole sufficiency as Saviour - the reality of His resurrection. We also have a basic real trust in Christ personally as Saviour. But do we grow in faith? Is it the everyday reality of our relationship with God? You see trust - which is what faith is- is a great measure for any relationship. If we don't really trust someone it is a poor relationship indeed.
In today's Reading CH Spurgeon challenges us as believers if we are indeed living by faith.

"Strong in faith."
-- Romans 4:20

Christian, take good care of thy faith; for recollect faith is the only
way whereby thou canst obtain blessings. If we want blessings from God,
nothing can fetch them down but faith. Prayer cannot draw down answers
from God's throne except it be the earnest prayer of the man who
believes. Faith is the angelic messenger between the soul and the Lord
Jesus in glory. Let that angel be withdrawn, we can neither send up
prayer, nor receive the answers. Faith is the telegraphic wire which
links earth and heaven-on which God's messages of love fly so fast,
that before we call he answers, and while we are yet speaking he hears
us.

But if that telegraphic wire of faith be snapped, how can we receive
the promise? Am I in trouble?-I can obtain help for trouble by faith.
Am I beaten about by the enemy?-my soul on her dear Refuge leans by
faith. But take faith away-in vain I call to God. There is no road
betwixt my soul and heaven. In the deepest wintertime faith is a road
on which the horses of prayer may travel-aye, and all the better for
the biting frost; but blockade the road, and how can we communicate
with the Great King?

Faith links me with divinity. Faith clothes me with the power of God.
Faith engages on my side the omnipotence of Jehovah. Faith ensures
every attribute of God in my defence. It helps me to defy the hosts of
hell. It makes me march triumphant over the necks of my enemies. But
without faith how can I receive anything of the Lord? Let not him that
wavereth-who is like a wave of the Sea-expect that he will receive
anything of God!

O, then, Christian, watch well thy faith; for with it thou canst win
all things, however poor thou art, but without it thou canst obtain
nothing. "If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that
believeth."

Who was the real “St. Patrick”?

2008-03-17T10:33:00.004Z

Given the "day that is in it" I thought a little reflection on who Patrick really was, would be appropriate. The following is a condensation from Richard Bennett's excellent account of the real Patrick. You can find his account on Christian answers.net
www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/patrick.html

FACTS ABOUT PATRICK

He was a real, historical person born in 373 A.D. in Roman Britain.

Neither Patrick's date of death or birth are known with certainty. Tradition says that March 17 (St. Patrick's Day) is one of those dates, but there is no documentation to prove it.

Patrick was himself descended from a family that had been, for two generations at least, believers in Christ Jesus. His father, he tells us was "the deacon Calpurnius, son of the late Potitus, a presbyter, of the settlement of Bannaven Taburniae."

He was not Irish, but a British Celt.

He was not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. His writings do not mention the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines about the Pope, Purgatory, Masses, or the virgin Mary.

In his time, church leaders were allowed to marry.

He brought the true Gospel of Christ to the Irish as a Christian missionary-evangelist in or about 405 A.D.

These facts are recorded in Patricks own testimony of faith. "Confession of Patrick" from which his accounts are quoted.

This authentic document is preserved in five manuscripts: one in the Book of Armagh of the seventh century, the second in the Cotton Library of the tenth century, a third in the French monastery of St. Vedastus, and two more in the Cathedral Library of Salisbury. This authenticated document is the main source of both the person and the mission of Patrick, and also his clear statement of the Gospel of grace.

THE STORY

Patrick was born in the year 373 in a town on the River Clyde- “ Bannaven Taburniae." in Roman Britain, now a part of Scotland.

When he was sixteen years old, Patrick was captured by a band of pirates who sold him to a chieftain in what is now county Antrim in Northern Ireland. For six years he tended flocks. at Slemish mountain
In his testimony he tells us,

"I was taken captive before I knew what I should desire and what I should shun."

CONVICTION & CONVERSION

It was during the time of his captivity that he turned from his careless ways and came to a saving knowledge of Christ Jesus. He was convicted that he was a sinner. In his own words,

"before I was humbled I was like a stone lying in deep mire, and He that is mighty came and in His mercy raised me up and, indeed, lifted me high up and placed me on top of the wall. And from there I ought to shout out in gratitude to the Lord for His great favours in this world and for ever, that the mind of man cannot measure."

Patrick, like so many of the godly men of history, found God's favor in the riches of the grace of Christ. This was the theme echoing throughout the testimony of Patrick, in his own words "I am greatly God's debtor, because he granted me so much grace."
He then grew in the grace of God. Having believed on "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," [6] he directly received "of his fullness--grace for grace." In his own words,

EVIDENCE OF A NEW HEART

"More and more did the love of God, and my fear of Him and faith increase, and my spirit was moved so that in a day [I said] from one up to a hundred prayers, and in the night a like number; besides I used to stay out in the forests and on the mountain and I would wake up before daylight to pray in the snow, in icy coldness, in rain, and I used to feel neither ill nor any slothfulness, because, as I now see, the Spirit was burning in me at that time."

ESCAPE TO HOME

Patrick relates how, after six years, he escaped and after a difficult journey on land and sea returned to his people in Scotland. In his own words,

"I was again in Britain with my family [kinsfolk], and they welcomed me as a son, and asked me, in faith, that after the great tribulations I had endured I should not go any where else away from them."

HIS DIRECT MISSION FROM THE LORD

Like the Apostle Paul, he received a clear and personal call from the Lord to preach the Gospel in the land of his former captivity. He described his call in these words,

"I saw a man whose name was Victoricus coming as if from Ireland with innumerable letters, and he gave me one of them, and I read the beginning of the letter: The Voice of the Irish, and as I was reading the beginning of the letter I seemed at that moment to hear the voice of those who were beside the forest of Foclut which is near the western sea, and they were crying as if with one voice: We beg you, holy youth, that you shall come and shall walk again among us. And I was stung intensely in my heart so that I could read no more, and thus I awoke. Thanks be to God, because after so many years the Lord bestowed on them according to their cry"

He speaks of being called again in dream another night, but makes it clear how he interpreted what was happening by the Scriptures. He wrote, "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we know not how to pray as we ought. But the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for utterance." And again, "The Lord our advocate intercedes for us."

Thus, Patrick relies on Scripture to understand his experience and to see that it was the Lord Himself who was calling him. In his own words, "He who gave his life for you, He it is who speaks within you."
He understood that Christ Jesus, who had died for his sins, was the One who was calling him to work as an evangelist in the very island where he had been held captive.

A second historical document from Patricks own hand is his letter to Coroticus. In it he explains his assignment from God to a foreign nation for the glory of eternal life that is in Christ Jesus. His own words are the following,

"Thus I am a servant in Christ to a foreign nation for the unspeakable glory of life everlasting which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This is a major factor in understanding Patrick. He knew himself as a sinner and found salvation where only sinners find it, "in Christ Jesus our Lord."[13] The first words of his testimony read,

"I, Patrick, a sinner, a most simple countryman, the least of all the faithful and most contemptible to many."

Likewise, in the beginning of his letter to Coroticus he states,

"I, Patrick, a sinner, unlearned, resident in Ireland".

Quite clearly, Patrick saw himself as a sinner. He did not look to some spark of life from within himself or to some ritual; rather, he looked unto Christ Jesus. Patricks words, "unspeakable glory of life everlasting which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" shows his distinct and personal comfort and courage in Christ.

HIS MISSION BEGINS

Patrick, the Christian Evangelist, being about 30 years old and together with some brothers in the Lord, set out for Ireland. He arrived in or about the year 405. This fact of history is authentic and verified. For example, Marcus, an Irish Bishop, who lived at the beginning of the ninth century, states that Patrick came to Ireland in the year 405 AD and Nennius, who lived about the same time, repeats the statement.
This date is of great importance because many centuries later there was an attempt made to confuse Patrick with Palladius, who had been sent out by Pope Celestine as a missionary to Ireland.

When news of Patricks Christian success had reached Rome, Pope Celestine then sent Palladius as a bishop to bring the churches under the control of the Papacy. It was in 432, at least 27 years after Patricks commission from God, that Palladius from Rome came on the scene.

When Palladius did come to Ireland, it was to an Ireland that had many Christian churches and that did not accept his message of subservience to the Bishop of Rome. In actual fact, Palladius was greatly discouraged by his lack of success.
To quote from the church historian Philip Schaff,

"Palladius was so discouraged that he soon abandoned the field, with his assistants, for north Britain, where he died among the Picts… The Roman mission of Palladius failed; the independent mission of Patrick succeeded. He is the true Apostle of Ireland, and has impressed his memory in indelible characters upon the Irish race at home and abroad."

GOD’S GRACE OVER THE COURSE OF 60 YEARS

The work of Patrick and his associates in Ireland was extremely difficult. He came up against the old pagan religion of the Druids. The people believed in the Druids as pagan priests who mediated for them in the things of the spirit. When Patrick preached Christ Jesus in his own words he said,

"I am greatly God's debtor, because he granted me so much grace, that through me many people would be reborn in God, and soon after confirmed, that clergy would be ordained everywhere for them, and the masses lately come to belief, whom the Lord drew from the ends of the earth.

As He once promised through His prophets: To you shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited naught but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit. And again, I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles that you may bring salvation to the uttermost ends of the earth. And I wish to wait then for His promise which is never unfulfilled, just as it is promised in the Gospel."
He wrote of baptizing many thousands of believers after they had professed faith.

He also wrote about anxious journeys, difficulties, and disappointments. He combated the powers of darkness in the priesthood of the Druids.

He relied on Christ Jesus and the glorious Holy Spirit given to convict people of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He understood grace to be entirely from God when he declared,

"I, alone, can do nothing unless He Himself vouchsafes it to me. But let Him search my heart and [my] nature, for I crave enough for it, even too much, and I am ready for Him to grant me that I drink of His chalice, as He has granted to others who love him. Therefore may it never befall me to be separated by my God from His people whom He has won in this most remote land. I pray God that He gives me perseverance, and that He will deign that I should be a faithful witness for His sake right up to the time of my passing."

Over the course of 60 years, Patrick went the length and breadth of Ireland preaching the Gospel and, like Timothy and Titus before him, he ordained elders and established churches. It is reckoned that at the end of his days there were 365 churches across the island. These were established, as were the churches in Biblical times, with the people served by a pastor or elder. The authority of the pastor was one of service, rather than lording it over the people. It was like that which was established in the pages of Scripture.

Likewise, the monasteries set up by Patrick, were totally unlike the monasteries that were established under the Church of Rome. These monasteries were quite like those of the Vaudois and other early Christian churches of northern Italy and southern France, whereby men came aside for some years to be trained in the Scriptures and to learn how to evangelize and to bring the Gospel to others. They were in fact more like seminaries or Bible colleges

Later in their lives these men married and had families. These men were not forsaking the world for some retreat of inner holiness; rather, they were men who saw light and life in Christ Jesus and wished to evangelize others with the true Gospel. Because of these monasteries and the churches that Patrick founded in Ireland, Ireland became known as the "Island of Saints and Scholars".

600 YEARS OF FRUITFULNESS & EVENTUAL DECLINE

The clarity of the Gospel message cherished by Patrick and those who worked with him was to live on for many years after him. There were many famous missionaries like Patrick such as Columba and his companions who set out for Scotland in 563. Then there was Columbanus with his companions that went to evangelize France and Germany in 612. Kilian and the brothers that accompanied him went as missionaries to Franconia and Wurzburg in 680. Forannan and twelve brothers with him set out to bring the Gospel to the Belgian frontier in 970.[20]
Copyrighted

For more than six hundred years, Irish missionaries carried the Gospel with the same truthfulness as Patricks to Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy and beyond. Darkness covered Europe in the ninth and tenth centuries. The Dark Ages had begun and the Roman Church, having gained rulership through intrigue and persecution, now held most of Europe in her iron grip. Even so, in those dark centuries, the Irish missionaries continued to spread the true Gospel, seed which for centuries to come would bear much good fruit all across Europe.

THE STOLEN LEGACY OF PATRICK

Papal Rome began to unleash military power to bring Ireland under her control. This began with the decree of Pope Adrian IV issued to King Henry II of England in 1155. The Pope authorized the invasion of Ireland and sent the king a ring of investiture as Lord of Ireland, calling upon the monarch to,

"to extirpate the vices that have there taken root, [in Ireland]…saving to St. Peter and the holy Roman Church the annual pension of one penny from each house.
(This Papal Bull of Pope Adrian IV that empowered king Henry II to conquer and subdue Christian churches to Rome )

King Henry carried out the designs of the Papacy in 1171 and with a strong military force subdued the whole Irish nation. He received from every Archbishop and Bishop, at the Synod of Cashel in 1172 charters whereby they confirmed the Kingdom of Ireland to him and his heirs. The King sent a transcript of these charters to Pope Alexander III, who, according to the letters of the Archbishops and Bishops, was extremely gratified by the extension of his dominion, and in 1172 issued a bull confirming the Papal decree of Pope Adrian.

Further rulings were sent from Rome to Henry II and to the princes and nobles of Ireland, and to the bishops of Ireland to establish the hierarchy over the people and pastors and enjoin obedience of both Ireland and England to the Papal throne.

THE HERITAGE OF PATRICK LIVES ON!

The heartbeat and the soul of Patrick was the Gospel of Christ. He wrote in his testimony,

"I am imperfect in many things, nevertheless, I want my brethren and kinsfolk to know my nature so that they may be able to perceive my souls desire. I am not ignorant of what is said of my Lord in the Psalm: You destroy those who speak a lie and a lying mouth deals death to the soul. Likewise the Lord says in the Gospel, In the day of judgment, men shall render an account for every idle word they utter.

So it is that I should fear mightily, with terror and trembling, this judgment on the day when no one shall be able to steal away or hide, but each one shall render account for even our smallest sins before the judgment seat of Christ."

These words of Patrick are as a prophetic trumpet of the Lord. It is most serious to steal the legacy from the people of the nation, particularly when that heritage was life and light in Christ Jesus!

Many Irish have grown up engrossed in the rites and rituals of Roman Catholicism. Many of us, turning from those dead things and having tasted of the Biblical grace of God that is in Christ Jesus, now want to stand on Patricks words,

"no one shall be able to steal away or hide, but each one shall render account for even our smallest sins before the judgment seat of Christ."

The wonder of Patricks life was simply God's grace in Christ Jesus. The divine call to the true Gospel went forth from Ireland for more than 600 years.

Just as Patrick expected the power of God's grace to overcome the priesthood of the Druids, we now stand for the same Biblical Gospel that he preached to evangelize even those in the Catholic priesthood and hierarchy. The battle is the Lords and the victory will be His. "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Luke 12:32

In the legacy of Patrick, we pray Christ words, "Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am." John 17:24

The frightening words of the Lord ring in the ears of those who spend their lives in man-made religion, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21

As Christ Jesus Gospel stands, so also is His call on your life.

Believe on Him alone for,

"this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." 1 John 5:11-12

2008-03-15T11:25:00.002Z

Many people struggle with conversion. Maybe you are at that point too. You know all the arguments. You have heard countless sermons. Friend after friend has witnessed to you and told you what Jesus will do for you. Yet you hold back.
Perhaps you are wondering if God would save you? CH Spurgeon applies the story of the two lepers to those who are seeking salvation. His message is simple : What do you have to lose? Maybe you are held back by fears and doubts. The only thing you can do with fears and doubts is to face them. Will you? That is what the lepers in today's reading did. Will you come to Jesus ? If you do you will find that all you will lose is what you desperately need to lose - your guilt and condemnation. What will you gain? God, heaven, peace of mind; a reason to live and a hope beyond death! Why wait!

"Why sit we here until we die?" 2 Kings 7:3

Dear reader, this little book was mainly intended for the edification of believers, but if you are yet unsaved, our heart yearns over you: and we would fain say a word which may be blessed to you. Open your Bible, and read the story of the lepers, and mark their position, which was much the same as yours. If you remain where you are you must perish; if you go to Jesus you can but die. "Nothing venture, nothing win", is the old proverb, and in your case the venture is no great one. If you sit still in sullen despair, no one can pity you when your ruin comes; but if you die with mercy sought, if such a thing were possible, you would be the object of universal sympathy. None escape who refuse to look to Jesus; but you know that, at any rate, some are saved who believe in him, for certain of your own acquaintances have received mercy: then why not you? The Ninevites said, "Who can tell?" Act upon the same hope, and try the Lord's mercy. To perish is so awful, that if there were but a straw to catch at, the instinct of self-preservation should lead you to stretch out your hand. We have thus been talking to you on your own unbelieving ground, we would now assure you, as from the Lord, that if you seek him he will be found of you. Jesus casts out none who come unto him. You shall not perish if you trust him; on the contrary, you shall find treasure far richer than the poor lepers gathered in Syria's deserted camp. May the Holy Spirit embolden you to go at once, and you shall not believe in vain. When you are saved yourself, publish the good news to others. Hold not your peace; tell the King's household first, and unite with them in fellowship; let the porter of the city, the minister, be informed of your discovery, and then proclaim the good news in every place. The Lord save thee ere the sun goes down this day.

Blessings in Difficulties

2008-03-10T12:06:00.004Z

This morning I turned to my usual devotional reading- Spurgeon's "Morning & Evening" It is challenging to say the least! We so often pray for the things and the circumstances we think we need. God knows better. As you look at what's happening in your life today don't ask "How do I feel about it" but instead ask "What is God doing through it." Every blessing.

S Murphy

"In my prosperity I said I shall never be moved."
-- Psalms 30:6

"Moab settled on his lees, he hath not been emptied from vessel to
vessel." Give a man wealth; let his ships bring home continually rich
freights; let the winds and waves appear to be his servants to bear his
vessels across the bosom of the mighty deep; let his lands yield
abundantly: let the weather be propitious to his crops; let
uninterrupted success attend him; let him stand among men as a
successful merchant; let him enjoy continued health; allow him with
braced nerve and brilliant eye to march through the world, and live
happily; give him the buoyant spirit; let him have the song perpetually
on his lips; let his eye be ever sparkling with joy-and the natural
consequence of such an easy state to any man, let him be the best
Christian who ever breathed, will be presumption; even David said, "I
shall never be moved;" and we are not better than David, nor half so
good. Brother, beware of the smooth places of the way; if you are
treading them, or if the way be rough, thank God for it. If God should
always rock us in the cradle of prosperity; if we were always dandled
on the knees of fortune; if we had not some stain on the alabaster
pillar; if there were not a few clouds in the sky; if we had not some
bitter drops in the wine of this life, we should become intoxicated
with pleasure, we should dream "we stand;" and stand we should, but it
would be upon a pinnacle; like the man asleep upon the mast, each
moment we should be in jeopardy.

We bless God, then, for our afflictions; we thank him for our changes;
we extol his name for losses of property; for we feel that had he not
chastened us thus, we might have become too secure. Continued worldly
prosperity is a fiery trial.

"Afflictions, though they seem severe,
In mercy oft are sent."

More than just hot air! Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'

2007-03-14T17:02:00.000Z

I came across this excerpt from an article by a respected meteorologist who happens to be a professor at MIT. It's a refreshing infusion of reason into an increasingly hysterical campaign.

An MIT meteorologist dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."

"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.

The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.

Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said.

"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added.

The Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.

"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.

FULL TEXT http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200412/CUL20041202a.html

Not the "Gay Gene" but....

2007-03-12T17:49:00.000Z

This is a very interesting and timely blog posted originally by Dr Al Mohler. (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php )Read it, be challenged, think and pray!

Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About it?

What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner.

For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.

The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing." As William Saletan at Slate.com explains:

A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10 percent are gay.

Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains--the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"--looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."

What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.

That's where the issue gets really interesting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has called for an end to the research, while tennis star Martina Navratilova called the research "homophobic and cruel" and argued that gay sheep have a "right" to be homosexual. No kidding.

Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.

But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.

Tyler Gray addresses these issues in the current issue of Radar magazine. In "Is Your Baby Gay?," Gray sets out a fascinating scenario. A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?

This question stands at the intersection of so many competing interests. Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question involves both abortion and gay rights -- the perfect moral storm of our times.

Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?

As Gray suggests:

In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!

More to the point, Gray understands that such a development would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America:

Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times. These tests are already leading to the abortion of fetuses identified as carrying unwanted genetic markers. The tests can now check for more than 1,300 different chromosomal abnormalities or patterns. With DNA analysis, the genetic factors could be identified right down to hair and eye color and other traits. The logic is all too simple. If you don't like what you see on the PDG report . . . just abort and start over. Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.

If that happens, how many parents -- even among those who consider themselves most liberal -- would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

Facing Up to The Shame

2006-11-10T10:48:00.000Z

Few Christians can have been untouched by the recent high profile fall from grace of Ted Haggard. pastor of one of the largest churches in the USA and president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Haggard was exposed as being involved with a male prostitute in a sex and drugs scandal. The following article was posted by Dr Carl Wieland and very aptly addresses the issue.

Photo: Ted Haggard arguing
with Richard Dawkins

The Haggard tragedy

‘Christianity must be wrong because of all the hypocrites in the church!’

by Carl Wieland
9 November 2006

When any significant Christian leader falls from grace in a major, public way, to say that it’s painful for God’s people is an understatement. The recent scandal involving Ted Haggard has reverberated around the globe. It is in many ways perhaps the most disastrous of such episodes that many of us have observed in our Christian lifetimes, involving as it did one of the most powerful and prominent evangelicals in the world. This man was not only the pastor of a huge church, he was the head of the largest association of evangelicals in America, and hence the world. He apparently had the ear of the White House, too, with weekly phone conferences with the President.

The facts need no repeating. Especially painful to contemplate is the video being shown widely on the net, where aggressively atheistic Darwinist Richard Dawkins interviews Ted Haggard, who is seen staunchly arguing with Dawkins against evolution (obviously recorded before these sad revelations).

Some have already asked us, perhaps before thinking it through in much depth, questions like: ‘Your ministry has been saying that much of the decline in our culture, including the vocal “gay agenda”, is due to the evolutionization of society. But here is Ted Haggard, while perhaps a bit equivocal in public about the age of the earth, up there attacking evolution with the best of them. And now this. What does that tell you?’

Actually, nothing much more than the obvious; that in a fallen world full of fallible, sinful people, what people do, and what they say, don’t, unfortunately, always correlate well. Of course, it is precisely this, the perception of massive hypocrisy, that has caused much of the shock and hurt, and has made the Christian community in general so much more vulnerable to criticism. If a leading atheist had done what Haggard did, it would have caused barely a ripple. But someone who was making a strong and persistent public stand, on behalf of millions of other believers, and on behalf of God’s Word, against ‘gay marriage’ and other forms of homosexual sin, and then engages in such practices himself … that is a different story.
Hypocrisy, Pharisees and Jesus

However, it is a logical fallacy to conclude from this that the message that Haggard brought on behalf of evangelicals is somehow discredited. Or to allow it to be watered down in the embarrassment of it all. Jesus reserved some of his strongest criticism for the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But he in no way condemned the righteousness that they stood for in public. Matthew 23:1–3 records:

‘Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practise and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.’

Thus the charge of hypocrisy was not an attack on the morality they preached but on their failure to live up to it. He actually told his followers to be even more righteous than them (Matthew 5:20).

In fact, the very pain of hypocritical actions in a preacher has something to do with our innate recognition that something intrinsically good has been debased and let down by his failure to meet the standard that he proclaimed. Hence the saying, ‘Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.’ It stands to reason that saying the right thing and doing the wrong thing is better than saying AND doing the wrong thing.

Indeed, what would have happened if Haggard had come out of the closet on his own and bashed the church for repressing gay sexuality? Judging by its record of lauding gay bishops, the generally anti-Christian media would be hailing Haggard as a brave maverick who had boldly thrown off the chains of organized religion to embrace self-actualization. We would hear very little of his hypocrisy of not following the book he claimed to believe in, or of betrayal of his family. About the only thing that the media seems to have against Haggard is that he now seems to be repentant, spoke out against homosexuality while practising it, and has not resiled from that.
Consistent with the Bible

But there is good news in all of this for the Bible-believer, in that the Christ and the Christianity of the Bible remain unblemished and, in a sense, vindicated.

Today we are in the era of big movements, big projects and big-name leaders, the risky ‘celebrity model’ as Nancy Pearcey’s classic book Total Truth describes it. To fulfil His purposes, God does not need any of us or indeed any of our man-made institutions—but He does want us to do as the prophet Micah (6:8) said—to ‘do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with [our] God’.

“ The very pain of hypocritical actions in a preacher has something to do with our innate recognition that something intrinsically good has been debased. ”
A robust worldview based on Scripture should make us quite skeptical in the face of human fallibility, and not blindly put our trust in man—including ‘big names’ in Christendom. Jeremiah reminds us: (17:9): ‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?’ He is talking about the human heart in general—including yours and mine. Psalm 118:8–9 says: ‘It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes [i.e. big names in public esteem].’

Inconsistency in the professed followers of the Word, even the most vocal, is always going to be with us. As the late evangelical philosopher Francis Schaeffer reminded those who pointed to Christian failings, when those who profess the name of Christ do base things, they are being inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings and standards, which remain good, pure, noble and worthwhile. (Regardless of whether they are believers backsliding, or ‘tares’—only God knows the difference as a rule—the impact is the same.)

On the other hand, consistent evolutionism gives no basis for calling anything ‘good’ at all (or ‘evil’ for that matter). When a committed evolutionist like Hitler carried out his pledge to serve mankind by struggling against weaker, inferior ‘races’, he was utterly wrong, but he was being totally consistent to the standard he proclaimed. No-one can call him a hypocrite. In fact, within his own worldview, it is hard to call him immoral (by what standard can we judge him, if we are nothing other than rearranged pond scum, the outcome of eons of struggle, with the strong wiping out the weak?).

Many have tried to claim that our emphasis on the link between social decay and departure from belief in divine creation means that we think evolutionists are immoral, and creationists moral, end of argument. But this is a caricature—see Evolution and Social Evil, and the explanation of the moral argument in this feedback. An individual evolutionist may lead an outwardly very moral life, maybe even more so than some creationists. But that does not alter the fact that on the whole, society will become (and has become) less moral, moving away from biblical absolutes as it realizes that consistent evolutionary thinking leaves no logical, objective basis for morality.

Why should anything be called good or bad? Who says? By what standard? Without God, everything is up for grabs. Indeed, Haggard’s opponent in the documentary exchange, Richard Dawkins, agreed elsewhere that evolution ‘leads to a moral vacuum … in which their best impulses have no basis in nature’. He scoffs at the idea of righteous indignation and retribution against child murderers and other vile criminals, claiming that it is as irrational as Basil Fawlty1 beating his car. And of course, in the evolutionary mindset, there is certainly no need for the salvation Christianity offers, as without any Adam, there is therefore no original sin. Many evolutionists profess to be ‘people of faith’—but faith in what? How can we know anything at all about God, unless He has chosen to give us a trustworthy revelation? And if we can’t trust that revelation (the Bible) to be reliable in one area (e.g. science/history) how can it be trusted elsewhere (cf. Jesus’ saying to Nicodemus: ‘If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?’ (John 3:12))? This is why the message of the authority of the Bible, from cover to cover, is more important than ever in this day, despite (perhaps even because of) the transgressions of those claiming to champion it.
An evolutionized culture increases the likelihood of these things

Knowing that someone is publicly committed to the authority of the Bible in all things (including creation) will not give a waterproof insurance policy that he/she will never be engaged in something that opposes that very authority—for the same reason that all of us sin (Romans 7:15–24, 1 John 1:8).

There is also some chance that a person who has fallen from grace may not be a believer at all, but a ‘tare’ (Matthew 13:24–30). He/she may have chosen to ‘go along’ and ‘play the game’ because it is such a great career opportunity, or for the fame or adulation, etc.

For all we know, Haggard, like the late evangelist Charles Templeton (who renounced his professed faith entirely), may have developed personal doubts about the reliability of the Bible because of the persistent evolutionary indoctrination of our age. Such doubts would make giving in to temptations just that little bit easier to justify.

Even if not, and Haggard never ceased to believe in the truth and authority of the Bible, there is no doubt that the changes in the culture itself, brought about by its general movement away from biblical absolutes, have made it more ‘respectable’ and somehow easier for even believers in those absolutes to give in to temptations to sin, which bombard them from every angle. Those bombardments themselves have increased in proportion to the retreat of Christian influence in culture in general. Even 30 years ago it would have been much more difficult to find the means to engage in such sin. Laws against wrongdoing (as well as general societal disapproval) certainly increase the difficulty and shame of sinful acts (Romans 13).

There is more, too, that needs to be said in relation to the link between moral decline and evolution—and the importance of repeatedly stressing that link. It is an obvious fact (one that no amount of sinning by any professed creationists can affect) that no-one who stands for the authority of the Bible in the area of six-day creation will simultaneously be found lobbying for the diminution of biblical authority in other areas, such as the ordination of homosexual clergy, for example. Those in the clergy, or in the pews, who defend such things as this will never be found defending the Genesis record of creation as factual and historical. On the other hand, if someone is defending the six-day creation record of the Bible, then whatever their private inconsistencies, they are making a public stand for the authority of the Bible in the area where it is perhaps the most unpopular. By default/definition, then, in other areas, such as legislative attempts to undermine public respect for Christian morality, etc., they will be standing for biblical authority, too, at least in public. And that cannot be a bad thing.

One needs to remember that all of the advances in society which we look back on with favour—the abolition of slavery and child labour, as well as hospitals (care for the sick), prison and orphanage reform—even the blossoming of science and technology itself, have all come about directly from the light of the Gospel being allowed to permeate the culture, despite the failings of individual believers.
Putting sin in perspective

Ted Haggard’s departure from his post is of course appropriate. Scripture throughout condemns homosexual activity as one symptom of sinful lusts, in turn arising from a rejection of God (Romans 1:20–32), This is largely because it violates the created design of marriage as a man and a woman, endorsed by Christ Himself (Matthew 19:3–6, citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24). And a sexual sin is especially serious because it is ‘against one’s own body’ (1 Corinthians 6:18), and can often be ‘a sin that leads to death’ (1 John 5:16).

All the same, we also do well to consider that it is not the only sin in the book, and it is not the ‘unforgivable sin’ either. The Bible calls homosexual behaviour an ‘abomination’; but the same word (Hebrew תועבה / תעבה to‘ebah) is also applied to a proud look and a lying tongue, for example (Proverbs 6:16–19). Such sins are not exactly absent from the church in general, including those in the eminent corridors of ‘Christian power’, but it is unlikely that their practitioners will suffer public disgrace.

In fact the whole gospel message—the good news about redemption from sin, depends on lovingly telling people the bad news that they are sinners! In such a context, Paul first sharply condemns certain sinful acts, including but not highlighting homosexual acts, in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Many people find it easy to mentally skip over the bit about greed, or slander, because it’s too close to home. But Paul doesn’t stop there! He goes on to say in the very next verse:

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
link http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4753

An Overwhelming Judgement!

2006-11-01T11:01:00.000Z

Everything seemed so normal. Nobody expected it. Then it happened. In the space of a few hours a whole world was doomed. The great flood came, as Noah had prophesied and God had warned. But no one except Noah and his family paid any heed. God had made a way to escape. It involved Noah hearing and believing God - that is acting on the basis of what God said.
The Bible says another great and final judgement is coming. How prepared are you? Here is what CH Spurgeon had to say in this evenings devotion.

"And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away: so
shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
-- Matthew 24:39

Universal was the doom, neither rich nor poor escaped: the learned and
the illiterate, the admired and the abhorred, the religious and the
profane, the old and the young, all sank in one common ruin. Some had
doubtless ridiculed the patriarch-where now their merry jests? Others
had threatened him for his zeal which they counted madness-where now
their boastings and hard speeches? The critic who judged the old man's
work is drowned in the same sea which covers his sneering companions.
Those who spoke patronizingly of the good man's fidelity to his
convictions, but shared not in them, have sunk to rise no more, and the
workers who for pay helped to build the wondrous ark, are all lost
also. The flood swept them all away, and made no single exception. Even
so, out of Christ, final destruction is sure to every man of woman
born; no rank, possession, or character, shall suffice to save a single
soul who has not believed in the Lord Jesus. My soul, behold this
wide-spread judgment and tremble at it.

How marvellous the general apathy! they were all eating and drinking,
marrying and giving in marriage, till the awful morning dawned. There
was not one wise man upon earth out of the ark. Folly duped the whole
race, folly as to self-preservation-the most foolish of all follies.
Folly in doubting the most true God-the most malignant of fooleries.
Strange, my soul, is it not? All men are negligent of their souls till
grace gives them reason, then they leave their madness and act like
rational beings, but not till then.

All, blessed be God, were safe in the ark, no ruin entered there. From
the huge elephant down to the tiny mouse all were safe. The timid hare
was equally secure with the courageous lion, the helpless cony as safe
as the laborious ox. All are safe in Jesus. My soul, art thou in him?

Inconvenient Truth?

2006-10-25T13:07:00.000+01:00

We live in the Post Modern Age -so we are told. Truth is relative."It's all a matter of perspective." We cannot be absolutely sure about anything-except that there are no absolutes! How different and encouraging a picture we get from Scripture. The God Who is Himself truth has come to us in Jesus. It is a fact. He has given us the truth in His Word. What do we do with it? It is to be believed , lived , fellowshipped in and shared! The following from Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening" says it a lot better than I can.

"For the truths sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with
us for ever."
-- 2:John 2

Once let the truth of God obtain an entrance into the human heart and
subdue the whole man unto itself, no power human or infernal can
dislodge it. We entertain it not as a guest but as the master of the
house-this is a Christian necessity, he is no Christian who doth not
thus believe. Those who feel the vital power of the gospel, and know
the might of the Holy Ghost as he opens, applies, and seals the Lord's
Word, would sooner be torn to pieces than be rent away from the gospel
of their salvation. What a thousand mercies are wrapped up in the
assurance that the truth will be with us for ever; will be our living
support, our dying comfort, our rising song, our eternal glory; this is
Christian privilege, without it our faith were little worth. Some
truths we outgrow and leave behind, for they are but rudiments and
lessons for beginners, but we cannot thus deal with Divine truth, for
though it is sweet food for babes, it is in the highest sense strong
meat for men. The truth that we are sinners is painfully with us to
humble and make us watchful; the more blessed truth that whosoever
believeth on the Lord Jesus shall be saved, abides with us as our hope
and joy. Experience, so far from loosening our hold of the doctrines of
grace, has knit us to them more and more firmly; our grounds and
motives for believing are now more strong, more numerous than ever, and
we have reason to expect that it will be so till in death we clasp the
Saviour in our arms.

Wherever this abiding love of truth can be discovered, we are bound to
exercise our love. No narrow circle can contain our gracious
sympathies, wide as the election of grace must be our communion of
heart. Much of error may be mingled with truth received, let us war
with the error but still love the brother for the measure of truth
which we see in him; above all let us love and spread the truth
ourselves.

Our Servant King

2006-10-24T11:00:00.000+01:00

We have been called the "me" generation. In truth however the Bible says that every generation is the "me " generation. The amazing truth that the Bible teaches us that God has come to serve those who refuse to serve Him or each other. Christianity is the ultimate counter cultural movement. Yet even Christians can -and do- drift back to the "me first" default of our sinful nature. In Christ's amazing gesture at the Last Supper -on the eve of Calvary - we have a startling and poignant reminder of what we ought to be about. Here is Surgeons thoughts from this evenings devotional. Read, be challenged, think and change!

"He began to wash the disciples' feet."
-- John 13:5

The Lord Jesus loves his people so much, that every day he is still
doing for them much that is analogous to washing their soiled feet.
Their poorest actions he accepts; their deepest sorrow he feels; their
slenderest wish he hears, and their every transgression he forgives. He
is still their servant as well as their Friend and Master. He not only
performs majestic deeds for them, as wearing the mitre on his brow, and
the precious jewels glittering on his breastplate, and standing up to
plead for them, but humbly, patiently, he yet goes about among his
people with the basin and the towel. He does this when he puts away
from us day by day our constant infirmities and sins. Last night, when
you bowed the knee, you mournfully confessed that much of your conduct
was not worthy of your profession; and even tonight, you must mourn
afresh that you have fallen again into the selfsame folly and sin from
which special grace delivered you long ago; and yet Jesus will have
great patience with you; he will hear your confession of sin; he will
say, "I will, be thou clean"; he will again apply the blood of
sprinkling, and speak peace to your conscience, and remove every spot.
It is a great act of eternal love when Christ once for all absolves the
sinner, and puts him into the family of God; but what condescending
patience there is when the Saviour with much long-suffering bears the
oft recurring follies of his wayward disciple; day by day, and hour by
hour, washing away the multiplied transgressions of his erring but yet
beloved child! To dry up a flood of rebellion is something marvellous,
but to endure the constant dropping of repeated offences-to bear with a
perpetual trying of patience, this is divine indeed! While we find
comfort and peace in our Lord's daily cleansing, its legitimate
influence upon us will be to increase our watchfulness, and quicken our
desire for holiness. Is it so?

The Dangerous Deception of Unbelief.

2006-10-23T11:40:00.000+01:00

Have you ever just crumbled? I mean after fighting the fight for what seems forever you just feel it's no use going on? David felt like that. He felt that his enemy's persistent relentless hounding of him must end in his defeat. He was wrong! So are we when we give in to this temptation. Why? Because we factor out the most vital ingredient of all; the promises of God . Here is what Spurgeon had to say . It is taken from his "Morning & Evening " devotional.

"And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by
the hand of Saul."
1: Samuel 27:1

The thought of David's heart at this time was a false thought, because
he certainly had no ground for thinking that God's anointing him by
Samuel was intended to be left as an empty unmeaning act. On no one
occasion had the Lord deserted his servant; he had been placed in
perilous positions very often, but not one instance had occurred in
which divine interposition had not delivered him. The trials to which
he had been exposed had been varied; they had not assumed one form
only, but many-yet in every case he who sent the trial had also
graciously ordained a way of escape. David could not put his finger
upon any entry in his diary, and say of it, "Here is evidence that the
Lord will forsake me," for the entire tenor of his past life proved the
very reverse. He should have argued from what God had done for him,
that God would be his defender still. But is it not just in the same
way that we doubt God's help? Is it not mistrust without a cause? Have
we ever had the shadow of a reason to doubt our Father's goodness? Have
not his lovingkindnesses been marvellous? Has he once failed to justify
our trust? Ah, no! our God has not left us at any time. We have had
dark nights, but the star of love has shone forth amid the blackness;
we have been in stern conflicts, but over our head he has held aloft
the shield of our defence. We have gone through many trials, but never
to our detriment, always to our advantage; and the conclusion from our
past experience is, that he who has been with us in six troubles, will
not forsake us in the seventh. What we have known of our faithful God,
proves that he will keep us to the end. Let us not, then, reason
contrary to evidence. How can we ever be so ungenerous as to doubt our
God? Lord, throw down the Jezebel of our unbelief, and let the dogs
devour it.

An Intolerant "Tolerance"?

2006-06-23T12:53:00.000+01:00

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"

2006-06-13T12:16:00.000+01:00

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 Â“meanÂ” 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 Â“emergentsÂ”).

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.Â” (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 brothersÂ”. 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!

2006-06-06T09:54:00.000+01:00

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

2006-06-05T11:50:00.000+01:00

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!

2006-06-02T12:39:00.000+01:00

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?

2006-06-01T11:39:00.000+01:00

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.

"It's only a little sin!"

2006-05-30T10:17:00.000+01:00

How often have we heard this! Let's be honest how often have we told ourselves this excuse. Just as our life is made up of "little" incidents and little choices, so our spiritual downfall is made up of a mountain of "little " sins. In this mornings reading CH Spurgeon graphically illustrates the danger of the "little foxes" that destroy the vineyard.

"Take us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines." Song of Solomon 2:15

A little thorn may cause much suffering. A little cloud may hide the sun. Little foxes spoil the vines; and little sins do mischief to the tender heart. These little sins burrow in the soul, and make it so full of that which is hateful to Christ, that he will hold no comfortable fellowship and communion with us. A great sin cannot destroy a Christian, but a little sin can make him miserable. Jesus will not walk with his people unless they drive out every known sin. He says, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." Some Christians very seldom enjoy their Saviour's presence. How is this? Surely it must be an affliction for a tender child to be separated from his father. Art thou a child of God, and yet satisfied to go on without seeing thy Father's face? What! thou the spouse of Christ, and yet content without his company! Surely, thou hast fallen into a sad state, for the chaste spouse of Christ mourns like a dove without her mate, when he has left her. Ask, then, the question, what has driven Christ from thee? He hides his face behind the wall of thy sins. That wall may be built up of little pebbles, as easily as of great stones. The sea is made of drops; the rocks are made of grains: and the sea which divides thee from Christ may be filled with the drops of thy little sins; and the rock which has well nigh wrecked thy barque, may have been made by the daily working of the coral insects of thy little sins. If thou wouldst live with Christ, and walk with Christ, and see Christ, and have fellowship with Christ, take heed of "the little foxes that spoil the vines, for our vines have tender grapes." Jesus invites you to go with him and take them. He will surely, like Samson, take the foxes at once and easily. Go with him to the hunting.

Yet More Da Vinci Code.....

2006-05-26T14:02:00.000+01:00

Trying to summarise the Da Vinci Code question can be difficult. The following article from Christianity Today is really helpful. Read it and think about it. Do follow up to the Christianity Today site for a wide range of views on contemporary Christian issues.

5 Big Questions from The Da Vinci Code
A brief guide.
by Christianity Today magazine Associate Editor Collin Hansen

Download this article as a Free One-Page Guide to hand out and discuss with your family and friends.
Already an international publishing sensation, The Da Vinci Code now is a feature film directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks. The compelling story written by Dan Brown blurs the line between fact and fiction, so moviegoers have joined readers wondering about the origins and legitimacy of orthodox Christianity. This guide offers brief answers to five important questions.

1. Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene?
No. Mary Magdalene was certainly close to Jesus. She wept at Jesus' tomb (John 20). Jesus even entrusted her to return and tell the disciples about his resurrection. But we have no reason to believe they were married. Brown says that Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper reveals the secret. He writes that the figure to Jesus' right, traditionally known as the apostle John, is actually Mary. Not true. Artists often gave characters feminine features to portray youth. John was the youngest of the disciples.

Brown correctly observes that few Jewish men of Jesus' day did not marry. But why, then, did the apostle Paul, himself celibate, not mention Jesus and Mary when he argued that apostles could marry (1 Cor. 9:5)?

2. What about these alternative gospels that aren't in the New Testament?
It's true that the Bible did not arrive as a "fax from heaven," as Brown writes. The New Testament canon in its current form was first formally attested in 367. Nevertheless, church leaders applied important standards when compiling the Bible. Authors of accepted writings needed to have walked and talked with Jesus, or at least with his leading disciples. Their teaching could not contradict what other apostles had written, and their documents must have been accepted by the entire church, from Jerusalem to Rome. Church leaders considered earlier letters and reports more credible than later documents. Finally, they prayed and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide their decisions.

The so-called Gnostic gospels, many discovered just last century, did not meet these criteria. Many appeared much later than the Bible and were dubiously attributed to major Christian leaders. Their teachings contrasted with what apostles like Paul had written. For example, many Gnostic writings argued that Jesus did not appear in the flesh, because flesh is evil, or they rejected the Old Testament.

3. Were there really competing Christianities during the early church?
YesÂin the sense there were many disputes about the nature of Jesus. And the church has done its best to vanquish challengers to orthodoxy. Once the church decided against the Gnostic writings, they gathered and burned all the Gnostic manuscripts they could find.

Later church councils convened to discuss other threats to Christian orthodoxy. Constantine, the first Roman emperor to make Christianity legal, called the most important of these meetings in 325. Leaders from around the Christian world gathered in Nicea, where they debated Arianism, which taught that God created Jesus. Brown writes that Constantine called this council so he could introduce a new divine Jesus on par with the Father. On the contrary, documents from before Nicea show that most followers of Jesus already called him LORD, the Yahweh of the Old Testament. The church leaders at Nicea rejected Arianism and affirmed that God and Jesus existed together from the beginning in the Trinity. This council produced the first drafts of what became the Nicene Creed, a landmark explanation of Christian belief.

4. What is Opus Dei?
A conservative religious group within the Roman Catholic Church. Opus Dei urges priests andlaypeoplee to strenuously pursue sanctification through everyday discipline. The group has taken criticism for its conservative views, zeal, and secretive practices. There is no evidence that Opus Dei has resorted to murder; nor has the Vatican entrusted Opus Dei to violently guard the church's deepest secrets, as Dan Brown claims in The Da Vinci Code.

5. Does the Priory of Sion really exist?
Yes, but not as described by Brown. Researchers suspect that members of the real-life Priory of Sion, founded in 1956, forged documents that placed major historical figuresÂsuch as Isaac Newton and Leonard da VinciÂin an ancient secret society. There is no evidence for this group beyond dubious documents. Any story relating this group to a dynasty begun by Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a fanciful work of fiction.

Collin Hansen is associate editor of Christianity Today (www.christianitytoday.com). For more Christianity Today coverage, visit www.ChristianityToday.com/go/DaVinci

THE DA VINCI CODE?

2006-05-25T18:18:00.000+01:00

Love it or loath it it certainly is a phenomenon! I'm referring of course to the "Da Vinci Code" It's publishers are boasting that it will outsell the Bible- well maybe in an airport bookstore for a few weeks- let's see how it's doing 100 years from now! Perhaps the question Christians need to ask is why IS it so popular! After all the story line is mediocre at best. What is unique is that by combining airport fiction,supposed facts and a deadly religious conspiracy spanning centuries some button is activated! It seems to me that there are at least two discernible forces at work: Firstly there is Man's innate hostility to the simple truth of the gospel. As believers we must take seriously the declaration of Scripture : "The natural mind is hostile to God" Rom 8:7 The willingness to believe any attack on the gospel - no matter how transparently false and obviously motivated by money is a sober testimony to our total depravity!
Secondly a willingness to ascribe to Roman Catholicism murderous capacity to suppress truth. The fact of course is that for centuries Rome did indeed use lethal force to suppress all her enemies orthodox and heretical alike. Brown has tapped into a rich subterranean vein of anticlericalism and anticatholicsm that is shared with different emphasis in both continental Europe and North America. The fact that he has for what ever reason conflated Christian orthodoxy and Roman abuse of power is unfortunate. The results have been interesting . I purchased a DVD - produced by a mainline evangelical group in the US challenging the Da Vinci Code. Before long it was obvious that as well as Evangelical worthies like Chuck Missler the DVD also featured an extreme Roman Catholic apologist. He used the opportunity to undermine the evangelical case for the non canonicity of the Apochrapha! Also the DVD stated that Opus Dei was a similar organisation to the Navigators- just getting together to promote discipleship! For those who don't know Opus Dei is a conservative Roman Catholic Society deeply committed to all the Tridentine anti evangelical doctrines of Rome. And though Dan Brown makes some silly mistakes in his portrayal of the Society he is correct in that they do promote and practice corporal "mortification" -including self flagellation. Not quite the Navigators after all!
In our reaction to the Da Vinci Code we need to be careful who we endorse on the way! My enemy's enemy may not be my friend! Wisdom is indeed called for. If you are interested in following through the Biblical Christian answers to the Da Vinci Code, the following site is great! http://www.rbcdavincicode.org/

The "Amazing Grace" of answered prayer!

2006-05-24T10:34:00.000+01:00

Sometimes we wonder when our prayers are not answered the way we think they should be. This morning's reading from CH Spurgeon reverses this way of thinking. Given the reality of our lack of spirituality -especially when we pray- the wonder of grace is that God should answer any of our prayers at all!
Every blessing

May 24, Morning

"Blessed be God, which hath not turned away my prayer." Psalm 66:20

In looking back upon the character of our prayers, if we do it honestly, we shall be filled with wonder that God has ever answered them. There may be some who think their prayers worthy of acceptance--as the Pharisee did; but the true Christian, in a more enlightened retrospect, weeps over his prayers, and if he could retrace his steps he would desire to pray more earnestly. Remember, Christian, how cold thy prayers have been. When in thy closet thou shouldst have wrestled as Jacob did; but instead thereof, thy petitions have been faint and few--far removed from that humble, believing, persevering faith, which cries, "I will not let thee go except thou bless me." Yet, wonderful to say, God has heard these cold prayers of thine, and not only heard, but answered them. Reflect also, how infrequent have been thy prayers, unless thou hast been in trouble, and then thou hast gone often to the mercy seat: but when deliverance has come, where has been thy constant supplication? Yet, notwithstanding thou hast ceased to pray as once thou didst, God has not ceased to bless. When thou hast neglected the mercy seat, God has not deserted it, but the bright light of the Shekinah has always been visible between the wings of the cherubim. Oh! it is marvellous that the Lord should regard those intermittent spasms of importunity which come and go with our necessities. What a God is he thus to hear the prayers of those who come to him when they have pressing wants, but neglect him when they have received a mercy; who approach him when they are forced to come, but who almost forget to address him when mercies are plentiful and sorrows are few. Let his gracious kindness in hearing such prayers touch our hearts, so that we may henceforth be found "Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit."

Well done!

2006-05-23T11:38:00.000+01:00

This is Daniel our youngest boy-and Chasity of course - his fiance. He has just graduated from Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College. He and Chasity plan to go on to William Carey College in Hattiesburg Mississippi for further study. They plan to marry in December so please do pray for them both as they plan to serve the Lord together. Well done to you both!

Getting started...

2006-05-22T17:18:00.000+01:00

Well this is a first..for me at least! I want to use this blog to put up anything that I think will be helpful to those who either know God are are really looking. It will include my own thoughts.. stuff from sites I really like and a few classics from great Christian teachers and writers of the past.
I will also comment on current events inside and outside the church from a Biblical perspective. What really will make this worthwhile is feedback from YOU! Well there's the invitation..
Let me get things going with a quote from "Morning & Evening" by CH Spurgeon the great 19th Cenury English Baptist - the "Prince of Preachers" He is trying to get us to have an eternal perspective- but he can say it much better than me!
"Afterward." Hebrews 12:11

How happy are tried Christians, afterwards. No calm more deep than that which succeeds a storm. Who has not rejoiced in clear shinings after rain? Victorious banquets are for well exercised soldiers. After killing the lion we eat the honey; after climbing the Hill Difficulty, we sit down in the arbour to rest; after traversing the Valley of Humiliation, after fighting with Apollyon, the shining one appears, with the healing branch from the tree of life. Our sorrows, like the passing keels of the vessels upon the sea, leave a silver line of holy light behind them "afterwards." It is peace, sweet, deep peace, which follows the horrible turmoil which once reigned in our tormented, guilty souls. See, then, the happy estate of a Christian! He has his best things last, and he therefore in this world receives his worst things first. But even his worst things are "afterward" good things, harsh ploughings yielding joyful harvests. Even now he grows rich by his losses, he rises by his falls, he lives by dying, and becomes full by being emptied; if, then, his grievous afflictions yield him so much peaceable fruit in this life, what shall be the full vintage of joy "afterwards" in heaven? If his dark nights are as bright as the world's days, what shall his days be? If even his starlight is more splendid than the sun, what must his sunlight be? If he can sing in a dungeon, how sweetly will he sing in heaven! If he can praise the Lord in the fires, how will he extol him before the eternal throne! If evil be good to him now, what will the overflowing goodness of God be to him then? Oh, blessed "afterward!" Who would not be a Christian? Who would not bear the present cross for the crown which cometh afterwards? But herein is work for patience, for the rest is not for today, nor the triumph for the present, but "afterward." Wait, O soul, and let patience have her perfect work.
"Morning & Evening "May 18th
God bless