Tuesday, 22 May 2018

"If I say I am a woman, I am a woman"


David Lewis, a Labour activist, told the Spectator he identifies as a woman "on Wednesdays, between 6.50am when my alarm goes off and around midnight when I go to bed."

"If I say I’m a woman, I’m a woman."

I don't know if he's serious, or if he's a subversive aiming to expose the intellectual vacuity of modern gender ideology, by a kind of reductio ad absurdum. And that's the point... we've now reached the stage where it could be either of those things, and nobody would know the difference. They might be doing it for the comedy value, or in deadly earnestness, and if you want to be popular with the "progressive" crowd, then you'd better not laugh before you've made sure of which.

In the article, one person quoted correctly notes "It is already making the sex category of woman meaningless."

Precisely. If femininity is whatever anyone, anywhere cares to define it as, then femininity is nothing. If detached from biology, from bodily integrity, from all the years of life experience from the womb until adulthood, from the differing ways in which you relate to those who are not female and to those who are female... then femininity does not have anything substantial left to grasp.

On this one, you either have to have your cake, or eat it. You can't have both. Femininity is a real, objective and wonderful thing created by God with a glorious purpose... or, it's nothing. Choose, and don't be mealy-mouthed about it.

Same with "gay" marriage. If marriage is just what a majority of MPs prefer at any one moment to write on some parchment that it is, and if they have the power to change their minds on that whenever the wind changes direction, then it is nothing.

Transexual activists, and homosexual activists, are not creating something new of value; they destroy it. They trade off the value attached to the concept attached to the word "marriage" or "woman" - and then hollow out the meaning from it, replacing it with something different. Something like David Lewis. But only on Wednesdays.

Sunday, 20 May 2018

"If I had known grandchildren were this much fun..."

What the world considers the greatest blessings, is not what the Bible considers the greatest blessings. And vice-versa.

I was looking for things to illustrate the blessing described in Psalm 127:6 - "May you see your children's children".

This one surely takes some sort of prize: "If I had known grandchildren were this much fun I would have had them first."

Friday, 13 April 2018

It's not our goal to avoid tears, because Jesus will wipe them away

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." - Revelation 21:4

We, followers of Jesus, spend far too much time trying to avoid ever having to shed any tears, feel any pain, get too near to any mourning. We don't want to be vulnerable, we don't want to be defeated, we don't want to be broken and needing to be re-made. But there's no need. Jesus will comfort those who need to be comforted, with the comfort that only he can bring. So why should we fear being vulnerable, and getting into the situations, for his sake, where we end up experiencing the death that is in this world because of sin, and crying many tears?

Surely there will be some who stand before him on the last day, and he has to say to them "Every time that I invited you to join me, the Man of Sorrows, in my tears, you said 'no'. And thereby you witnessed plainly to the world that you were not one of mine. You had no tears, and I have no ministry towards you to wipe any away. Now go aware from me, you who would never weep over sin, over this broken fallen world, over what you faced for my sake - go into the place where there is weeping for evermore, and nobody to comfort."

Would you be one of those? Or one of those whose tears the Son of God himself wipes away, when he makes all things new?

Tuesday, 10 April 2018

20 years today

Devizes, Wiltshire, 8.22 a.m. Friday April 10th, 1998. Here goes!

Westminster Bridge, London, 7.14 a.m. Saturday April 11th. We've done it, we've done it!

Twenty years ago today. I still thank God for the memories and things learned through that amazing day/night. There's still been nothing like the remotest chance of repeating it, and I still count the cause of that - serving Jesus Christ, and all the responsibilities and blessings (hello family!) it's brought that have taken me away from many things I'd have chosen to do if my life was my own - as infinitely worth it!

Monday, 2 April 2018

Arnauld Beltrame was a disciple of Christ

The French policeman who gave his life to save a hostage in recent weeks
- Arnaud Beltrame - had recently come to Christ. I hadn't learnt that
from the previous coverage I'd read.

Tuesday, 27 March 2018

Childless fathers, and our rejection of the Fatherhood of God

God the Father made the world to be filled with roles that require the exercise of fatherhood. There are to be fathers in families. There are to be fathers in the church. There are to be fathers in the state. People who will take responsibility, sacrificing their own resources and lives, in order to nurture, care for, discipline and instruct those under their care. Daddies, teachers, judges, police officers, ministers, church elders and pastors, etcetera.

We live in a time in which the Western world is in wholesale rebellion against the Fatherhood of God. It hates the very idea. "Patriarchy" (which is to say, the rule of fathers) is a swear-word in all circles that lead our society. Our society rejects the whole concept of the Father's authority, and consequently of the authority of all the little "fathers" in different walks of life.... whilst on the other hand, setting up false authorities, both too-liberal and yet also oppressive fatherhoods which do not nurture and discipline, but promote both wantonness and tyranny at the same time.

It is interesting to note now how many leading politicians in the West are (if not wanton, abandoning their responsibilities as parents) themselves childless. It is wrong to wildly extrapolate from individual cases. But it is absolutely right to observe a general trend and pattern, and notice when it is being manifested.

One of those fathers who is not a father is Emmanuel Macron. There is no wild extrapolation in saying that no man with any real experience of fatherhood and any wisdom taught by it, would have come out with this piece of bilge:

France is to make school compulsory from three years old, President Emmanuel Macron, has announced, insisting that the earlier children are in class, the higher their chances of success and integration in society.


No sane man who has witnessed three, four and five year olds, and the power and blessing of a present mother and a present father in their lives, could rationally conclude that their best hope in life is to be taken away from the family, and placed in state educational institutions (much less in modern Western ones). The idea that the state should be - on pain of the full force of the law - be the parent of three-year olds, is beyond insane.

“The French Republic was invented in and through schools and it is schools that weave the fabric of our common good,” said Mr Macron, adding that last Friday’s terrorist attack by a French national of Moroccan origin proved there was no point focusing solely on “the symptoms” of a divided society.

Which, being de-weazelised, is to say that if mothers and fathers are allowed to have their children present with them, then this is a gross evil. The atheistic French revolution's goals of complete autonomy from God might be imperilled if parents are allowed to parent, instead of the state taking it over. This alleged "danger", of the strong families, has been identified and attacked by tyrants everywhere.

So, instead of the "evil" of families, the state claims the right to kidnap infants ... for kidnapping remains kidnapping even if an arbitrary number of parliamentarians approve of it and write it down on pieces of parchment, and then lies that all will be well, contrary to all human experience and all scientific study of the value of family life in the early years. To prevent the evils of Jihadist terrorism, they say, all homes must be broken up. Are Jihadists the real enemy, or are homes that remind us in some way of true Fatherhood (and true motherhood)? Look at what laws actually do, not what they are claimed to be an attempt to do. A law requiring the appropriation of all children and breaking up of homes from the age of 3 is not an attack on Jihadists, but an attack on homes, families, mothers and fathers - and on The Father.

Truly, we as a society hate the Fatherhood of the heavenly father, and we hate everything that images it. We do not recognise fatherhood, and when we do recognise it, we wish to be rid of it. Everything that speaks of the created order that came from the Father, and speaks against the all-sufficiency of man and his inventions, must be attacked; the image must be effaced.

However, not everyone welcomed the move.

Sounds promising?

Some parents’ unions who were pushing for an even earlier start to nursery, at two, expressed disappointment.


But how does that actually work out, when you leave aside statist ideology, and the purely theoretical (and wrong) ramblings of people who do not understand or appreciate real-world fatherhood? What if we are allowed to do that for a moment?

“Our teachers have a high university level but their training, which  is too intellectual, doesn’t always correspondent to the child’s needs,” said Mr Cyrulnik.

Which is to say, in absurdly mild terms, that people who are not family mothers or fathers, are not family mothers or fathers, and that they harm children when they wilfully ignore that fact.