Thursday, 6 April 2017

Who is the parent?

Do parents have any rights which are not subject to the arbitrary whims
of the state? Or are children ultimately wards of the state, which
benevolently grants their parents certain privileges when it sees fit?
According to the UK's "supreme court," it's the latter:

This is one of those petty tyrannies (a fine of £60) based on completely
non-petty theories about the relationship between state and parents
(that the state has arbitrary authority to specify the tiniest details
of the timetable of how you should educate your children). The only
sensible response to petty tyrannies, once they become widespread and
systematic, is mass disobedience. i.e. They should be made unworkable by
parents in a school co-ordinating to agree to withdraw their children
en-masse on a specified day, and daring the authorities to take every
single last one of them to court. Petty tyrannies only work because of
the salami-slicing effect - people say "this isn't my battle". But, a
thousand petty tyrannies down the line, you find that after opting out
of every battle, you lost the entire war by default. Legally, your
children have become wards of the state, and faceless bureaucrats tell
you what their will is for your children, and fine you if you differ on
any of the details. The same arguments which justify this particular
petty tyranny can justify just about anything the state pleases. And
they will.

Christian parents in the UK need to be joining the dots if they haven't
already done so. For example, with compulsory immoral, secularised sex
education on the way, combined with a court favouring the Department of
Education's viewpoint that removing your child from a state school for
even half a day is an offence, what's your plan? This isn't a situation
that just arrived last week. It's the outworking of the last few
decades, in which we've inevitably progressed from A, to B, to C, to D.
There's nothing alarmist about pointing out that the next step is
certainly going to be E. What's our plan to ensure that our children are
raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, as Scripture requires
of us?

Sunday, 12 March 2017

Women ejected from women's shelter in order to house man

The future has arrived... law-makers giving way to extreme transgender
ideology now results in vulnerable women being kicked out of women's
shelters, so that men can stay there:

Monday, 6 March 2017

The Shack

This document summarises the theological teaching of, and then contrasts with the teaching of the Bible, the mass-selling story "The Shack":

HT: Triablogue


Friday, 24 February 2017

"Killed for Christ in the Amazon"

The story of the five Ecuadorian martyrs of 1955, in a 5 minute short
from the BBC:

Steve Saint's book, "The End of the Spear", is really excellent for many
reasons: Steve Saint's children
were baptised by one of the men who murdered his father.

Friday, 3 February 2017

Resisting Newspeak

One of the reasons why various sorts of political correctness, which
we'd do better to call Newspeak, must be resisted, is laid plain in the
link above.

If you go along with the idea that X is the same as Y, then, you must
accept the logical entailment that Y is the same as X. You can't
identify one with the other, without identifying the other with the one.

Or to speak more plainly, if Bruce Jenner in a dress is a woman, then
you've just grossly insulted the entirety of womankind. Because, it is
all the same as saying that there is nothing more essential to being
female which is possessed by other member of womankind, that is not
already possessed by Bruce Jenner in a dress.

If all you need to be female is the belief that you think you are
female, then femininity has no substance to it. If feminity is just the
belief that you have feminity, then there is no feminity. I believe that
I have a unreconstructued-anti-phlogistical unicorn in my garden. Does
this mean that I have an unreconstructued-anti-phlogistical unicorn in
my garden, just because I believe it strongly enough? If just believing
is enough, then it doesn't really matter what I mean by
"unreconstructued-anti-phlogistical unicorn". The thing itself is
irrelevant. Even so, femininity is then just a transient, subjective
thought about yourself, and what you think it refers to, is unimportant.
Feminine virtues, strengths and beauties evaporate into nothingness.
Your wife, your daughters - they have no feminine virtues, for there are
no feminine virtues to have. They cannot possess what does not exist.
The phrase "feminine virtues" then refers only to social constructs in
the heads of those who are inclined to follow them. And, as we keep
being told, we should keep challenging traditional social constructs,
until they break down.

So, which is it? Do particularly feminine glories exist? Or are they
just social constructs? You can't have your cake and eat it. Cowardice
and lying, in order to maintain one's social status, is not a virtue; it
is a sin. If God made feminine glories, then Bruce Jenner is a confused
man in a dress who at best deserves our pity for his confused mental
state. And people who love the truth must, in this time when it is a
hot-button issue, always be straightforward in saying so.

Donald Trump is exactly what our culture desired

"You Didn't Vote For TRUMP - Or Did You?"

Content warning: this video is not suitable for all audiences; it
contains brief examples of completely obscene pop song lyrics from a
"mainstream" pop star, and other references to "adult" topics. (But, on
the other hand, probably nothing most readers don't have daily
familiarity with, unless you threw your TV out). There are no obscene

I'm not an American, but Brits have nothing to smirk about here. The
exact same news sources which are the most outraged - the Independent,
the Guardian, the BBC - about Trump, promote Trump-like values without

Only, when they do it, it's branded as "edginess", "confronting taboos",
"challenging prejudice", "bringing liberation", or some other pleasant
sounding phrase. But does it matter what we call it? It's what's in the
can that matters, not what the packaging says.

Donald Trump represents so many values that the Trump-hating media have
been pushing into the culture - and which, as the video explains, we
have been extremely happy to have pushed onto us - for a long time now.
Our spending and use of time says what our values are. And on that
basis, Donald Trump could be elected President of the whole
"post-Christian" West, with no particular incongruity resulting.

Thursday, 2 February 2017

The prosperity un-gospel

If you've never seen the cursed "prosperity gospel" in action, then here
you go:

The "pastor" first works his people into a frenzy, so that any remaining
discernment disappears down the plug-hole. Then he tells them that if
they give money to God, then God will give back more. Then he prays to
God as the one who gives money, and urges the people to hand their cash

There's nothing subtle, or sophisticated. You might wonder how anybody
could possibly fall for this. Firstly, it's what vast numbers of people
in Africa are used to - they are not aware that there is another (real)
gospel. Secondly, very many are conditioned for it by education systems
that discourage critical thinking and encourage mindless repetition and
acceptance of the words of the authority figure, and by material poverty.

Have you considered if you are called to go and invest the years of your
life in bringing these people the real hope of the actual gospel? That
they might be taught about a real Saviour who she his blood for their
sins - not to multiply their bank notes in this life in this fallen
world, but to bring them into a new creation where righteousness dwells?
So that false pastors don't gorge themselves week by week by
slaughtering the flock for their own gain? Who will go?

Wednesday, 1 February 2017


"Unpopular" - this is a very clear explanation of the central issues of
the gospel.

Saturday, 28 January 2017

The future has arrived...

... and the weak don't belong in it.

I recently became aware of this quote, by Flannery O'Connor, a novelist
(and I won't pretend to have heard of her before coming across the
quote!): ""In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness. And
tenderness leads to the gas chamber." Are not so many of the West's
lurches back to paganism marketed as being great acts of compassion?

The bloody ripping of an innocent life from its mother's womb is
marketed in terms of "allowing a woman to control her own body". The
genocide of those unfortunate enough to have - or just be suspected of
having a raised statistical chance of having - Down's syndrome is
presented as a concern for all to have a high "quality of life". Forcing
mothers away from their children, out of their homes and into the
workforce to raise taxes for the leviathan state is presented as a great
concern for female empowerment. Pinning the elderly to their beds whilst
they are murdered with the assistance of their own families and the
state is presented as "health care". Yes: "compassion" which is divorced
from Christ, is a false compassion, divorced from life: its end is
death. And that end is not a dystopian dream of a far off time: it is
already with us.

Friday, 13 January 2017

The absurdity of gender reassignment

See this article for background:

Did you note how utterly absurd the idea of "gender re-assignment
surgery" is, if you follow this unwitting writer through as he tries to
work out the logic?

In case not, I can spell it out for you. First, here's what he writer
says, which is the new orthodoxy that we're being pressured to accept
and believe (and not critique, at risk of appearing to be a bigot or

* Gender, he says, is assigned by society. It is a set of social
conventions about expected behaviour.

* This is traditionally assigned to someone based on their bodily sex.
So, we expect girls to wear/do X; but we expect girls to wear/do Y.

* Some people feel that their sex and gender are out of alignment.

* And so.... they have "gender re-assignment surgery".

Let's respond to that. Firstly, note that, according to this theory,
gender is not your body. So, mutilating (for that is what it is) your
body, can only change your sex. Not your gender. Your gender (allegedly)
is *a set of social conventions imposed by other people*. No matter what
you do to your body, you won't change that.

OK, says somebody; it should be called "sex re-assignment surgery",
what's the big deal. Actually it is a big deal that this sort of
fundamental contradiction runs through the whole area. It's one of the
"tells" giving away the fact that you're not being sold a miracle cure,
but being sold snake-oil.

But, let's come to the bigger points. If someone feels that what society
expects of them is out of line with who they really are, then is bodily
surgery really the answer? If society says that I should be a foot
shorter, should I get a saw and remove from the shins down, perhaps? Or
if society says I'm too short, shall we send our young people onto the
rack, to correct this? What happened to "tolerance"? The same crowd
preaching the above nonsense are also always telling us about the
importance of "changing attitudes". How does this comport with
encouraging sexually confused people to have radical bodily surgery?
They must have surgery, so that they are now comfortable with the
traditional social conventions expected of them? Why have surgery? So
that now society is happy with the look of your body, because you now
behave in a manner that is in line with its reality?

Are you beginning to see the multiple levels of internal
self-contradiction in all of this?

The whole theory of surgery for "gender reassignment" assumes that
objective gender norms exist. It assumes that males are like
such-and-such; whereas females are not, because they are such-and-such
instead. It assumes that it is not simply a matter of societal
expectations. What kind of madness says that we need to chop and change
our bodies because they are out of alignment with changing social
preferences? Note too, how radically all this theory contradicts our
society also saying that you can follow any sexual preference you like,
regardless of your body - so, two men who have made a legal agreement to
commit sodomy can be said to be "married", even though there's nothing
of actual sexual complementarity involved in their relationship. i.e.
Society says that bodies and sexuality are independent. And yet,
supposedly, people are meant to have bodily surgery in order to bring
their bodies and their sexuality into line? Are there norms, or not? It
apparently depends on what particular sexual deviance is being discussed
at this minute. Next minute, the conversation might have moved on, and
we'll say the opposite.

Confused? They certainly are. The only way to hold this consistently
together is to drop all pretence that it's based on any consistent,
coherent or logical theory about human sexuality. Instead, the only
thing that can - and in reality, does - undergird it is the theory of
total personal autonomy. That everyone can do anything they like, and
reality is whatever they want it to be. That the only possible sin in
the whole area is to say "you should not do that, it is wrong".

Wednesday, 4 January 2017


"Imagine" has needed someone to deconstruct its lyrics for a long time.
And Douglas Wilson is just the man for the job.

Sunday, 1 January 2017

Anno Domini 2017

How good is the God we adore,
Our faithful unchangeable friend;
His love is as great as His power,
And knows neither measure nor end.

'Tis Jesus the first and the last,
Whose Spirit shall guide us safe home,
We'll praise Him for all that is past,
And trust Him for all that's to come.