Wednesday, 11 October 2017

A Europe we can believe in

This document should be spread far and wide. Its clarity of cultural
analysis is first-rate:

For example, how different would our politics be if this insight was
endorsed by politicians and worked its way throughout policy, instead
mere lip service in theory and the opposite in practice?

33. Marriage is the foundation of civil society and the basis for
harmony between men and women. It is the intimate bond organized around
sustaining a household and raising children. We affirm that our most
fundamental roles in society and as human beings are as fathers and
mothers. Marriage and children are integral to any vision of human
flourishing. Children require sacrifice from those who bring them into
the world. This sacrifice is noble and must be honoured. We endorse
prudent social policies to encourage and strengthen marriage,
childbearing, and childrearing. A society that fails to welcome children
has no future.

("All those who hate me (God's wisdom), love death" - Proverbs 8:36;
which could almost be the chosen slogan of much of Europe's current
political landscape).

Tuesday, 3 October 2017

Yes, really

As the extreme fringe of sexual confusion, i.e. transexual ideology, has made its way into the mainstream, it's been forcing more and more people to choose.

The choice:

1) Do I really believe this stuff... and accept its completely absurd (or worse) consequences?

2) Or.... do I say "no", and risk people calling me rude names (or worse)?

Or in other words... do I go along with the pretence that the Emperor is clothed? Or do I have to make everyone look at me by drawing attention to the fact that the entire kingdom can see his buttocks?

And so.... (drum roll)

Ta daa.... A Cambridge women's college which doesn't believe that there are such things as women. Yes, really. You see, gender is (they say) non-binary. There is no fixed point that you can call "womanhood". Womanhood, ultimately, doesn't exist. Thus says.... a women's college.

Their raison d'ĂȘtre is to provide education for women. Women. The ones who aren't men. But, in academic circles now, it's de rigeur to proclaim that there is not really any such thing as womanhood. You're a woman just as long as you self-identity as a woman. Womanhood is whatever you, choosing to identify as a woman, want it to be. Want to come to a woman's college? Well, you can, of course, as long as you feel that you're a woman.

Was it C S Lewis who point out that there are some things so stupid, that only really clever people can convince themselves to believe in them? And that anyone else just isn't capable of the mental contortions necessary to accept such obvious nonsense?

I suppose that if I choose to self-identify as "the person who sacks academics who've lost their minds", and visited a council meeting of Murray Edwards college in order to turf out all the people who made this decision, that would be OK too? None of them would start talking about how my personal delusions did not match up with objective reality? Do you think?

Well, that's enough of that. Those buttocks have warts on. It's putting me off my tea.

Tuesday, 5 September 2017

It makes a difference

The spirit of the age encourages us to believe that all religions are
basically the same.

And certainly, it's considered rude to think that Catholicism and
Protestantism have fundamental differences on vital questions.

But have you actually looked into it? Here, for example, is one of the
things the Pope sincerely believes and practises:

Monday, 4 September 2017

How God punishes nations

A few years ago, I read - I think it could have been James Jordan - someone saying that the Biblical pattern when God wishes to punish a nation for its wickedness, is that he raises up a nation even more wicked to do it. "So, you like wicked nations, do you? Here's one for you!".

So, when Israel or Judah turned to pagan idolatry in the Old Testament, then the experts at pagan idolatry would turn up to punish them. When, in the New Testament, the Jewish nation cried out "we have no King but Caesar", a few years later, it was Caesar who ordered her utter destruction. You don't get to say "that's not fair, we might be bad, but we're not that bad!" You do get to say "we've chosen wickedness, and when you choose wickedness, you lose any claim for God's hand of protection against wickedness."

At this point, what North Korea might get up to, is yet to be seen. Whether a warning shot across the West's bows, or whether they might actually nuke somewhere in the West, is unknown. But it bears thinking about, doesn't it?

And no, this isn't about Donald Trump, as if the West only decided how much it loved its rebellion against God a few months ago.

Wednesday, 30 August 2017

The Nashville Statement on human sexuality


It's good in what it says. What's telling is what it doesn't say - i.e. the things that self-identifying evangelicals and complementarians yet either 1) can't bring themselves to say, or 2) don't agree on or 3) didn't think of including. I'd suspect that, in terms of the most telling omissions, it's mostly 1) and 2).

I speak of the role relationships between husband and wife within a family, and the general connection between masculinity and responsibility to provide godly, Christ-shaped leadership in general in life, and the general connection between femininity and the responsibility to honour the general assignment of leadership to males in God's creation order (whilst fully recognised the complete equality and dignity of male and female as made in the image of God). This doesn't get a word. Articles 3 and 4 mention "the divinely ordained differences between male and female". But what are these divinely ordained differences? The statement mentions nothing beyond biological differences, and that marriage is intended to reflect the relationship between Christ and his church. But in terms of key words like "leadership" or "submission"; or concepts like affirming the value of home-making and motherhood against the world's lies about them; entire silence.

And that's the elephant in the room. It's a key area on which evangelicals begun compromising long ago. It's the place where the rot has already set in and travelled far. So far, that it can't even be mentioned in a statement explicitly intended to outline the contours of Biblical teaching on human sexuality. It's either embarrassing, or self-condemning, or both. We can't say "the husband has a duty to always provide godly leadership and take final responsibility for everything that happens in his family; the wife has a duty to submit herself to her husband's leadership and obey him in all things that are lawful according to God's word", because we either don't believe it, or don't want people to think we believe it, or don't practise it. (Which is why evangelical weddings commonly drop these biblical vows, despite the Bible's clear words about them).

What difference does it make? A huge amount. Study the statement. Ask the question "So... what difference does all this doctrine about human sexuality make in practice, according to what's written here?" Unless there's some actual *content* to idea of the relationship between Christ and his church, all we have left is the actual sexual act. The articles speak about who can, and who can't, partake in bodily sexual relations. i.e. It's hugely reductionist. The sexual act itself is left, under this scheme, as basically something arbitrary - and it appears that the unbelievers' charge (that on this subject, the church is just interested in forbidding sex, and not in too much else) has weight to it. But is being male and female really only about who you can't have sexual relationships with? Is that he beginning and the end of it? Are fatherhood and motherhood potentially interchangeable words? Do "husband" and "wife" signify nothing about role relationship? If they do, then it's clearly important enough to mention beyond an unexplained reference to a Biblical image. But if they don't, then in fact we as evangelicals do have a hugely reductionist doctrine of human sexuality, which this statement does nothing to fix.

So, as I say, the statement is good - in what it says. But if you look at what it omits, then you then see that it's not appropriate only for evangelicals to sign these statements to indicate their doctrinal purity, and talk only about areas in which evangelical practice is still mostly "holding the line". We also need to repent, do the former works, and confess the things in which we've sinned.

Saturday, 26 August 2017

4 common objections to Christianity

Courtesy of Solihull Presbyterian Church, 20-minutes answers to common objections that people make to Christianity:

You can’t take the Bible literally – Chris Statter
There’s more than one way to God – Stephen Dancer
How can I believe when there’s so much suffering – Chris Statter
Science disproves God – Stephen Dancer

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

Evangelical homosexuality

Tim Bayly asks whether it is consistent for evangelicals to spend 50 years removing, or minimising into functional nothingness, complementary roles from the marriage relationship, and then preach that there should be sexual complementarity in the marriage bed? . He asks, is preaching against other peoples' homosexual rebellion just a cover for our own? And the grand symbol and symbolic occasions where we see this acted out is here: at marriages of evangelical Christians, do the vows reflect the distinctive role relationship that God has revealed in Scripture, with man providing Christ-modelled leadership, and woman providing godly submission? Or do they reflect functional and doctrinal homosexuality, that either person could say either set of promises...because they're actually the same?