Friday, 23 December 2016

Is it wrong to celebrate Christmas? Is it pagan?

Good, succinct explanation from Steve Hays:

It's all about a robust view of God's creation. It's God's creation.
Others might *claim* that this or that day/place/thing/etc. now belongs
to Moloch. So what? All kinds of claims are made by all kinds of people.
But mere hot air doesn't change reality. At the end of it all,
everything still belongs to God.

The politics of advent

Wednesday, 21 December 2016

George Carey is now an un-person

This is the future, as envisioned by our cultural elite: if you don't
agree with every jot and tittle of the sexual revolution, then you're
not just wrong. You're don't even exist. You are George Orwell's
un-person. Nobody in decent society is allowed to pretend that they even
knew that you existed. Your life must go down the memory hole. To
mention you again at a dinner party would be an unforgiveable faux pas -
a thoughtcrime of the first order.

Here's Big Brother himself, as quoted in the article: "The university
said it had carried out the review before deciding some of the images
did not represent the 'diversity of our university community'."

All praise the glories of tolerance and diversity, comrades! We love
those values so well, that, if we ever come across a person who doesn't
sign up to every jot and tittle of our creed, then, we cannot bear even
to acknowledge that they exist. We must pretend that they never were,
and remove all reminders of them. Isn't diversity great?

In reality, in the long term, only biblical Christianity - with its
doctrine of a future judgment, but time and a gracious, kind offer of
forgiveness and opportunity to change now, but a change that can only
come form the heart, not from the sword - can support a proper idea of
tolerance and diversity. The Christian can pray, wait, act and trust
God. Secular humanists, on the contrary, believe that this life is all.
For them there's no reason or point in *not* stamping the boot on the
face, to force the world to fit with their vision. For them, the words
"tolerance and diversity" are a big lie. They believe in their views
being tolerated by the majority when they are in the minority, and then
stamping out everything else as quickly as possible as soon as the boot
gets onto the other foot.

Saturday, 17 December 2016

They all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ

These verses, written by the apostle Paul, found in Philippians 2, have been in my mind recently.

2:19 I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you. 20 For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. 21 For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ.

Do you think that, surveying the professing, Bible-believing church 2000 years later, Paul would have cause to write something different?

Surveying your Christian life, Paul would have cause to write something different? Whose interests do you, or I seek? Our own, or those of Jesus Christ?

Saturday, 10 December 2016

LGBT studies fabricated for politically-correct outcomes

One example: "A lone student's research found that it had been entirely
faked. ...New York Magazine reported that the student was constantly
opposed and told to keep quiet, "lest he earn a reputation as a

Monday, 24 October 2016

A few unsystematic thoughts on the Ashers' bakery verdict

- What a travesty. We should be mourning before God for the
well-deserved judgments being poured out on our nation (Romans 1:18-32).

- It appears that now the government believes that it can compel speech.
People can be forced to say things that they belong to be wrong, immoral
or abhorrent. Christians can be forced to voice opinions that they
disagree with. The age of thoughtcrime is officially upon us.

- Notice how secular/sacred division stemming from the secular
"Enlightenment" has generated this absurd decision. The judge has held
that the viewpoint "homosexual relationships are moral" is not a
"religious view," but that the exact reverse viewpoint "homosexual
relationships are not moral" is a religious view. Even though one is the
exact negation of the other, and hence neither is more religious than
the other, the judge is presumably in thrall to secularism. So, if
Christianity says "X", then this is "religious" ... but if secular
humanism says "not X", that's not religious. Or perhaps, the preferred
opinions of the government are de facto just not religious, just because
they happen to have had enough members of parliament vote on them. Is
the government's viewpoint just "not religious" somehow automatically by
definition? In another context, this sort of way of thinking would be
called "blind prejudice".

- The question of whether the baker declined to print a slogan for
religious reasons or not would be moot in a free society. In a free
society, there is no such thing as government-compelled speech. The
state doesn't get to force citizens to repeat its slogans in free
societies, and citizens don't have to explain why they're not going to
repeat them. That is, rather, a feature of fascist states. The reason
why a citizen declines to repeat the government-preferred slogan is a
total irrelevance outside of that kind of setting. The very fact that
the judges think it's their business to pry into a citizen's thoughts,
to decide whether those thoughts provided an adequate reason to decline
to repeat particular speech, in itself shows how far we've fallen.

- And as such, what a travesty. May God, in judgment, remember mercy.

Friday, 21 October 2016

Thankful for Genesis 3

I'm so glad that the Bible contains Genesis 3. Otherwise, how to
understand life?

Life is so frustrating and disappointing. I am so frustrating and
disappointing. But at least, one of the frustrations isn't to be
continually perplexed about why life is so frustrating. The Bible
explains that very clearly. Our expectations are framed at the outset.

There will be, and now is, a Redeemer of this fallen world. But we will
live, until the appointed time when he perfects all things, in a fallen
world. I won't be, and life won't be, all that it could or should be.
And there's no need to bang one's head against a wall because of being
convinced that it ought to somehow be possible to live in the new
creation now, before Christ returns.

Genesis 3 frees Christians to live both with hope and realism in a world
in which thankfully there is the former, but which also requires the latter.

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

Some incomplete exegetical notes on the "gift of singleness"

At this link, Tim Challies asks and provides an answer to the question, "What is the gift of singleness?", referring to the single verse in the Bible where this terminology is explicitly used (1 Corinthians 7:7).

One reason I find this discussion interesting is, before the last few years, I had been accustomed to hearing a different explanation as the "usual" one. But in more recent years, I think I pretty much only hear the explanation that Challies gives.

In short, Challies (referring to Vaughan Roberts, and John Stott), explains thus: the gift of singleness is being single. People who are single are those who have been (for the present; for however long it lasts) been gifted with singleness. And people who are not single have been gifted with the gift of being married.

The alternative explanation is that the "gift of singleness" is a special endowment from God, enabling a person to remain single indefinitely, for the gospel's sake. The background to that idea is that human beings are sexual, and the "normal" (please understand that word in the proper sense) state for an adult is to be in a complementary sexual relationship, i.e. Biblical marriage - and that it is "not good for man to be alone" - that it is unhealthy, given human imperfection (even leaving aside sinful imperfection; remember that God spoke these words concerning unfallen Adam). The "gift of singleness", under this view, is an extra gift, enabling someone called to kingdom service to persist in this state without the normal attendant struggles that it causes, or not to the same degree, etc. That is to say, it is a spiritual gift like the others that Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians - given to a particular believer (but not every believer in the same situation) for the gospel's sake.

Challies' purpose in his piece doesn't seem to be to argue between the views, but just to present the one he sees as correct. That's fine, of course. And of course, if you want to see the arguments weighed and considered properly, you should use a commentary. I'd like to make a few observations that seem to favour the alternative explanation.

- Firstly, the use of "gift" (charisma) in 1 Corinthians, as noted above. If this is a different kind of "gift", and particular a different kind of gift to the one he talks about a few paragraphs later, then this is mightily confusing. The language of spiritual gift is not used anywhere in the Bible in this way (as a general substitute for "blessing"), as far as I can see.

- In context, Paul has just addressed the subject of the necessity of regular sexual relations for married people, because of the dangers of doing otherwise. If he were then read to say "I wish you were all single (i.e. all had the gift that I have)", that seems incoherent. How does being single help one to deal with sexual temptation, compared to being married? To infer that all single Christians have a special assistance from God to resist sexual temptation which is not given to married people seems to have no support from the passage, and is explicitly contradicted by verse 9 (which, of course, gives no licence or excuse for fornication).

- Again, verse 9 envisages that for some single people, they have sufficient control over their sexual desires to be able to pass on marriage; and some do not (again note - they do not then fornicate and find that they have a convenient excuse for it; rather, as described by Paul they carry a particular ongoing psychological struggle and burden, described by Paul as "burning with passion"). This dovetails exactly with the view of the "gift" as a special ability given by the Spirit of God to a particular Christian, rather than something experienced by all unmarried Christians.

Much more could be said on the subject. Some sensitive souls are upset when reading about a sensitive subject unless all that could be said on that subject is actually said, all in the correct proportions. To such, I can only ask that they do not read what is not written, and try to see what spiritual profit there is in weighing up what is written.

Tuesday, 13 September 2016

If anyone thirsts, let him come to me, and drink

A recently preached sermon on John 7:37-40. It's been a long time since I uploaded any, but I'm going to try...

37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'" 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Saturday, 30 July 2016

Ben Johnson 1988

The BBC website currently has footage of the infamous Olympic 100m final of 1988 online:

Though I can remember the 1984 Olympic Games, this final 4 years later is one of the first sporting events that I remember very clearly.

It was a much-hyped showdown between the man with the all-American super-hero image, Carl Lewis, and the much less media-genic Ben Johnson. Johnson stormed across the line in a world record, but days later was stripped of his title following a positive test for anabolic steroids. The "bad guy" had lost; the clean hero won the day. A great story for the press!

Many years later, a much broader range of facts was on the table. Lewis, whose time became the new world record after Johnson was stripped of his new and previous mark, had failed a drugs test at the US trials - which, had the US athletics authority chosen not to suppress the finding and not apply the rules, would have meant he would have been disqualified from the games. Two of Lewis's training partners failed tests at the same time for the same banned substances. Lewis' response when this came out many years later was essentially "who cares, everyone was doing it."

Linford Christie, who was upgraded from bronze to silver, also failed his drugs test at the Games - but the authorities chose not to disqualify him, probably fearing destroying the event's credibility. Fascinatingly, Johnson's trainer, whilst agreeing that everyone was doing it, continues to assert that Johnson's test was doctored to frame him, because whilst he was taking steroids, he was not taking the one that he tested positive for (but can you believe a cheat?).

Six of the eight finalists tested positive for performance enhancing drugs during their careers. According to Wikipedia, this documentary (I've not listened it to verify the citation) contains an IOC official saying that 80% of the athletes at the 1988 games had endocrine profiles indicating long term steroid use. On that basis, the 100m final was about average - and why would you believe that this event was dramatically different to the others? This was the games at which Florence "Flo-Jo" Griffith-Joyner, infamous for her drastically improved performance and changed appearance and deepened voice, won the 100m gold in a never-since equalled time, having shattered the world record two months before in the quarter finals of the US trials. She also set new world records in the semi final and final of the 200m, also never since equalled - her nearest all-time rival being 10 years later over 2 metres behind - and a self-confessed steroid cheat (Marion Jones).

The 1988 100m final was the first time that 4 men crossed the line in under 10 seconds, 3 of them having failed drugs tests in the games or trials. In the most recent 100m final (London 2012), 7 of the 8 finalists crossed the line in under that time. At least 4 of the 8 previously or subsequently failed a drugs test. Does it arouse your curiosity that the standards are now significantly higher than when everybody was taking steroids?

There are lots of things you could take from this. Everyone loves a story; but the story of the time may not be the whole story. That much is obvious. But, perhaps less obviously, the story that comes out later may not be the whole story either. Statistically, most of the people lining up in these 100m finals are (with time) *known* to be drugs cheats. Given that, it's overwhelmingly likely that there are many, many more unknown drug cheats. Clearly, the chances of not being caught are good enough to persuade a majority of the most tested competitors (those who get to finals and win things) to cheat. Some people cheat and are disgraced; but the odds are good enough to tempt many more to cheat and get away with it for an entire career. 23 athletes entered for the Rio Olympics were found to test positive after having their 2012 London Olympics samples re-tested using the advances of the last 4 years. What would we find if it were possible to re-test the 2000 Olympics samples using 16 years of advances? What would we find if we could do that 50 years from now?

This all makes me thing of the final judgment. Jesus has told us that everything hidden will be revealed - every secret will be put on display. I don't think that athletics will be on the radar of what's considered most important that day - my point isn't "hurrah, at last we'll get an accurate list of world-best times!" I'm using athletics merely as an illustration. The number of "hidden" things which people are betting on keeping covered forever is huge. In many areas, not some, but most of what you see is a lie. But in actual fact, none of it is actually hidden. The one who counts - our Maker and Judge, the one with power to throw both body and soul into Hell - sees all, records all, and will bring all into the spotlight.

We don't now know particularly what is hidden. But anyone who's kept their eyes open and been alive more than a few years (especially if they've been a church elder!) knows that the quantity of it is vast beyond comprehension. However, there is good news. Jesus did not only die for our obvious-to-others sins. He also tells us that, if will repent, make appropriate confession, and turn away from any of our sins, then we may be forgiven. I wonder how many athletes, once their short careers are over, carry a decades-long burden of guilt, knowing that all their fame, glory and achievement was built on a lie.

How many of our lives, though, are built on a lie? But Jesus lived the life we should have lived, and offers it to us. He is the truth, and his life was an open book of holy, pure truth, lived out. The world is full of liars and so it hated him and put him to death. God raised him from the dead, because God and his Truth must triumph in the end. He offers us a fresh start, and to be part of that. But we must abandon the lie. He who is ashamed of Jesus and his words, is someone that Jesus will be ashamed of on the last day - that's not my words; those are his, and therefore they are also true (Mark 8:38).

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Law and morality

Here's a classic example of the statist mindset at work. The writer
reasons that "X is the right thing to do. Therefore, we should make it
illegal for anyone to do otherwise".

Apparently young people need extra help to get themselves to polling
stations. Therefore, the writer suggests the "help" of making it
criminal to do otherwise.

That's what happens when the secular pushes the sacred totally out of
the public sphere - you get apparently sane adults who increasingly
can't distinguish between, or who find it increasingly easy to jump
between "it'd be better if someone did such-and-such" and "the state
should incarcerate everyone who declines to do such-and-such".

Pray for Christians in Russia

Friday, 27 May 2016

On ad-blockers

I am roused from my dogmatic slumbers, by Tim Challies' thoughtful post on the weighty question of deploying an ad-blocker in your web-browser. Tim, whilst recognising that this is a legitimate area for disagreement, sees himself as morally compelled to not use an ad-blocker. You can read his piece at this link.
My response has got a bit long. But in case what Tim wrote troubled you, and you want to weigh it up in your own conscience, here is the other side of the argument.

Summarising Challies' argument against ad-blockers

Tim generally hates adverts, and finds them usually annoying - "for every useful ad, I have had to endure ten thousand awful ones". But, he concludes that he must endure them, to keep a clear conscience. His reasoning is simple: that this is the implicit bargain made between the creator of a webpage, and its reader. The creator makes content available, and the condition is that you view the adverts. By deploying an ad-blocker, Tim reasons, the reader breaks his agreement: he takes the content, but declines to view the adverts. The reader causes the creator to incur costs; likely "very minor—a fraction of a cent, perhaps—but it is still a cost". Moreover, many writers write in order to receive financial remuneration for their work, not an unreasonable desire. By not viewing the ads, Tim says, you're depriving the writer of his pay. As such, viewing the adverts is an application of the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12, to do to others what you would wish them to do to you. Conclusion: it's wrong to deploy an ad-blocker.


I disagree, on the following grounds.

Firstly, a minor argument based on a technical point. Tim's argument only applies to adverts for which the advertising is paying on a "pay per impression" model - i.e., where the advertising is paying for adverts to be shown. Many (most?) Internet adverts are on a "pay per click" model, where the advertiser only pays if adverts are clicked on (or some other action completed). In the case of "pay per click" adverts, Tim's argument fails. For such adverts, by allowing them to show, but not clicking on them, Tim is consuming content, but the author of the web page receives nothing. Tim might here say "but I might click on it if it's a good advert - and I can't know that unless I allow the advert to display". Quite so. But this means that Tim's argument is more than it appears: it's not simply an argument as to why you should not block adverts. It's more than that: it's an argument as to why you should also look at them. Does Tim take care to make sure he looks at all the adverts on the page, so that the content author isn't deprived of potential pay-per-click revenue? Otherwise, for "pay per click" adverts, his allowing the adverts to arrive somewhere in his browser is a sham: it allows him to fulfil the legalities of his principle, but does nothing meaningful to assist the content author. This brings us to the major matter.

An implicit agreement?

The heart of Tim's argument is the concept of the purported "implicit agreement" between the content creator, and the website visitor - the agreement which the ad-blocking visitor (according to Tim) breaks his side of. Does, in fact, this implicit agreement exist? This is highly doubtful, to say the least. The concept of an implicit agreement is recognised in law. As such, Tim's argument can be tested in the real world. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in which the existence of Tim's implicit agreement has been upheld in court. In some jurisdictions, is has explicitly been argued, but always (as far as I am aware) unsuccessfully. For example, it has been attempted multiple times in Germany, where, a Munich court recently "dismissed the newspaper's argument that Adblock Plus was interfering in a contract readers were entering into with the newspaper that included accepting ads." Tim might respond that his arguments are only intended to apply to his own jurisdiction (Canada). This begs the question - has any court in Canada specifically given any credence to his theory? Tim's theory is open to the charge of being a piece of armchair lawyering, with no real substance to it.

To this, Tim could respond that he's not talking about what may hold up in a court of law. Law and morality are not identical. He's not, he might respond, talking about a legal contract, but something at a lower level. If this route is taken, it should be recognised as a substantial concession. Tim's description of the immorality of ad-blocking is self-consciously framed in terms of a broken agreement that causes one party negative financial consequences. That seems very like a legal matter. If it's not, then Tim's case seems to face the charge of being unclear, at the very least - he's framed it in terms of something that it isn't. He then needs to clarify what this "lower level" is, if that is his argument.

The Golden Rule?

It may be that the quotation of the "Golden Rule" is intended to cover this. If you put adverts on your content, then presumably you want people to see them. So, correspondingly you should be willing to view other peoples' adverts. The problem here, though, is that Tim is mind-reading the content creator. Perhaps the content creator is happy for some people to block his adverts. Perhaps the content creator thinks that it's better to have a larger community of readers, who are all happy, rather than a smaller community because some didn't want to see any adverts. Perhaps (this will apply only to some sites) the content creator just put the adverts up speculatively, to earn himself a take-away every now and again, and doesn't take the adverts anything like as seriously as Tim does. This then raises another technical point: the technology to detect ad-blockers exists. It's available, and not hard to implement. A number of websites do. You can show different content to people who deploy ad-blockers, if you want to. Of course, this action, of detecting ad-blockers, incurs a cost - but, if we are talking about micro-fractions of a cent, what doesn't? Every second you live, your body is using energy. If you say "hello, how are you?" to somebody in the street, then you forced them to respond, and use energy up on it. So, merely "causing a cost" simpliciter is not a reason to not do something - more argument is needed. If Tim doesn't dutifully read/watch 100% of adverts, then he pushes a cost onto the maker of an advert - they must work harder to make their particular advert compelling. Is there a sub-clause in the implicit bargain which makes this cost OK, but others not OK? My point here, though, is that a content creator can very easily put a message "Hi, I want you to see my adverts. If you don't want to, then please browse away - this content isn't intended for you". Tim simply assumes that this - the most extreme possible position - is the viewpoint of every content creator.

Note again, that if Tim's argument applies to adverts as a whole, then it applies to each of them individually. If it's wrong to deprive the content creator of 100% of his revenue (by Tim's reasoning), then it's wrong to deprive him of 50% of his revenue, or 40%, or, ultimately, any of it - he should have everything that's his, not just a part. Tim is duty-bound to make sure he looks at all the adverts on the page, not just some of them.

Must we also purchase?

Furthermore, ultimately, how are adverts paid for? They are paid for when people buy the things that are advertised. If the things advertised are not bought, then they are no longer advertised - and the revenue stream dries up. Does Tim consider himself duty-bound to purchase things shown to him in adverts on web pages? Tim might reply "that's not part of the implicit bargain - I might buy something if I like it, but I'm not compelled to by my side of the bargain". This response would concede the conclusion that Tim is duty-bound to at least make sure he scrolls to each of the adverts, not just avoid blocking them. It is also in tension with Tim's statements of annoyance about how intrusive advertising is, which beg the question as to whether Tim simply wants to appease his conscience by allowing adverts to be loaded somewhere in the browser, but not where they might be in danger of being seen by him - which seems a rather legalistic evasion (what's the point of adverts that aren't seen?). Tim might further respond to this that "it's the advertiser's job, not mine, to make them eye-catching". This, though, begs the question - the more detailed and specific Tim's unwritten "implicit bargain" becomes, the more we are justified in doubting its existence. How does Tim know that the content creator, on every website he visits, sees the bargain in the same way as Tim, to such a level of detail, when the creator has not actually chosen to say so (which he is very free to do)?

Going outside the Internet

Another way of seeing the weakness of Tim's argument is to point out some of its logical implications. Pointing out logical implications does not in itself invalidate an argument. But, if the implications are absurd or unacceptable, then this indicates the existence of a weakness in the argument. Tim's argument appears to be structured as follows:

1) X is provided to me at no cost, but supported by advertising
2) If I take X, then unless I view the advertising, I am taking something for nothing
3) Taking something for nothing is wrong, so I should not do it
4) Therefore, I should view the advertising whenever I take X

In this particular case, "X" is the content of web pages. But, the form of the argument itself does not depend on that. It could be anything. Such as, for example, free-to-air TV channels. Does Tim, if/when watching a television program, make sure that he does not absent himself during the adverts? That any toilet breaks, or tea breaks, are taken during the program in equal measure to the advertising? Otherwise, he's taking the free program, but not viewing the adverts that support it. There are myriads of examples in this line. Free newspapers - the pages of adverts should be opened as much as the pages of content. Sponsored articles on blogs (like on Tim's) should be read.

Where's the threshold?

Again, if Tim should reply "no, you don't have to read them - it's the advertiser's job to make them interesting/eye-catching. You are free to skip the ones that you do not find interesting" this begs the question: why is not the website visitor entitled to decide, in advance, that he finds all adverts uninteresting? Can he not decide, a priori, that he does not like advertising? Why must he formally re-state that decision on every single specific advert on a site? Isn't it legalistic if you're deciding to give the 10 adverts on a page each a 0.5 second opportunity to impress you? For Tim's argument to have force, don't you actually have to weigh them each up? Note: I'm not legalistically asking for the exact number of seconds. I am asserting that Tim's argument requires reasonable consideration, not just casual flick-pasts.

Has the site owner already broken the implicit agreement?

Cannot a visitor decide that, all things considered, he considers it not worth his while to review them all to pick out the one in ten thousand which (according to Tim) are not awful? Does not the fact that 99.99% of them are not worth seeing justify him in declining to invest time in searching for the needle in the haystack? If the implicit bargain requires that the website visitor be reasonable, why does it not include that the content creator be reasonable and (implicitly) agree not to show adverts which are 99.99% terrible? Isn't agreeing to view adverts that can be fairly assumed in advance to be 99.99% an unconscionable action? Again, it seems that Tim's implicit bargain contains a hefty load of fairly precise small-print.

Online reality

Finally, Tim's argument treats the real state of the Internet in 2016 as hypothetical. Ad-blocking went mainstream a few years ago. According to this link, in 2015, 198 million people were doing it, including 45 million in the US and 12 million in the UK. Realistically, every content creator knows that ad-blocking is common. Ad-blocking is a big enough phenomena to explicitly address. As such, Tim's assumption of an "implicit agreement" in the situation where content creators are not doing this, is gratuitous.

Friday, 13 May 2016


This article is both very thoughtful, and from an experienced and
qualified source:

Friday, 1 April 2016

Who's the fool?

Seen on the Telegraph website a few moments ago...

10:03pm April Fools' Day 2016: The best pranks, jokes and reaction
10:16pm Nicola Sturgeon: Scots to be allowed to change gender so they are neither male nor female

In a world in which you begin with the mantra "religion and politics don't mix, Christianity has nothing to say outside of church buildings", it's not long before people who think they're serious, behave like they're serious, and everybody treats seriously... can't be distinguished from people that anyone outside of the bubble would assume was an escapee from an asylum.

10:03pm April Fools' Day 2016: The best pranks, jokes and reaction
10:16pm Nicola Sturgeon: Scots to be allowed to change gender so they are neither male nor female
10:19pm Nicola Sturgeon: Scots to be allowed to change the moon into cheese
10:28pm Nicola Sturgeon: Scots to be permitted to adapt Newton's theory of gravity if they find it oppressive
11:05pm Nicola Sturgeon: Scots to be able to adjust the year of their birth if reality troubles them
11:45pm Nicola Sturgeon: Scots will gain powers to shape-shift and re-invent themselves as vacuum cleaners, but only on Tuesdays

When you have modern Western politicians, what exactly is the point of an April Fools' Day?

Psalm 14:1 - "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

In God's mercy, there's an antidote to being at war with reality, at war with ourselves, at war with what God made us. God can remake us through Jesus Christ. The desire to rebel against what he's made us can be replaced with a willingness to embrace it, and submit to it, in joyful obedience to him. However messed up we are inside - there's another solution to demanding that the world re-organise itself around our mess. There's a Saviour who can put us right again.

Friday, 18 March 2016

Take up your cross

Our family's Bible reading this morning - how necessary a passage for the Christian, each day...

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Wednesday, 24 February 2016

Pray for America

America is still the world's most powerful and influential nation, and this year it holds its 4-yearly vote for its most powerful office-holder, the President.

So, now is the time when Christians should be praying for America; the results of that election will have serious and wide-ranging consequences. For one, the next president is likely to be the one who nominates the vacant seat on America's supreme court, following the recent death of Antonin Scalia - a man who was a bulwark in defending the US constitution (sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully) against its enemies; for example, against those who have argued (sadly, with continuing success), against all truth, reason and logic, that the US constitution somehow, somewhere, prevents states from protecting the lives of unborn babies, or somehow, somewhere, makes it illegal for a state to enforce the truth that marriage is an institution involving the coming together of two sexually complementary beings, which is to say: man and woman.

Unfortunately, we live in a very degenerate age. Discernment is almost dead. Almost anyone can claim almost anything, and concerns of character, having a consistent track record, personal integrity, of proving one's abilities over a number of years... this hardly appears on the map. If the circumstances, and your media spin doctors, can combine to line things up... then that's increasingly, more or less, all that's needed to open the door to power. All the things that voters ought to be looking for can be substituted for with big money, a big lying mouth, and either a TV show or sufficient political ruthlessness.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This pair are now the strong favourites for the nominations of their respective parties, and the November election is currently heading towards a run-off between them. This is a prospect which ought to be horrifying to anyone who retains the last vestiges of any vaguely Christian discernment anywhere in their being and who has made even the most basic attempts to scrape past the thin layers of spin and do any research into the track records that these two individuals have run up over the past few decades.

Of course, voters will ultimately get what they vote for. An electorate who care little about truth or integrity will, in God's wisdom and judgment, tend to receive leaders who reflect the electorate's character and priorities. God judges us often by giving us the thing we wanted. If the electorate's priorities are personal gain, self-indulgence, believing lies and mongering grievances, then they will receive leaders in accordance with those priorities. But that should not stop Christians grieving and praying over it, that God may have mercy, even whilst we rejoice that Jesus Christ remains the ultimate Lord of Lords and President of Presidents.

Thursday, 28 January 2016

Dear Ofsted...


You can write to Ofsted too... the address is:

* * *

Dear sir/madam,

I am writing about concerning comments in Sir Michael Wilshaw's LBC radio interview of 15th January 2016, in which he confirmed today that Sunday schools (and similar ventures) will be required to register and be subject to inspection, under plans the government has introduced as part of its "Counter-Extremism Strategy".

This, apparently, is required not because of any solid, substantial evidence of harm, or of harm that's not already covered by existing legislation on the UK statute books. Rather, it's called for by a perceived need to "deal with" the problems raised by Islamic extremism "in an even-handed way", something that Sir Michael said we've "go to" do.

Allow me suggest that we've "go to" do no such thing. Rather, it will be a phenomenal waste of time, resources, and a cause of much frustration and pointless trouble, to do so.

Recently, a national newspaper commentator wrote, concerning the following words concerning police:

"The police have been subjected to a 30-year inquisition and revolution, in which old-fashioned coppers have been pushed aside (and into retirement) by commissars of equality and diversity. Deprived of their proper occupation, preventive patrolling on foot (long ago abolished), they have become officious paramilitary social workers. These new police are obsessed with the supposed secret sins of the middle class, and indifferent to the cruel and callous activities of the criminal class." -

Whether this commentator is correct concerning the police or not, the phrase "officious paramilitary social workers" is rather memorable, as is the suggestion that some government agents are too "obsessed with the supposed secret sins of the middle class". Do Ofsted seriously think that the real-world, actual danger posed by Islamic terrorism is in any way mitigated by officiously registering and investigating Sunday Schools, or the like? Do we need make-work schemes to help employees of the state feel good about themselves, or do we actually want to tackle problems that exist?

If we cut out of our thinking what offends always-offended activists, then in a sensible world an "even-handed" approach would mean that the educational facilities run by people linked to known groups associated with Islamic terrorism would be suspect, whereas other groups should be allowed to continue enjoying the precious blessings of liberty. "Even-handed" should not mean "let's annoy everyone, good or bad", but "let's investigate where there's a real reason - backed by solid evidence that actual crimes are being incited - to do so". Shouldn't it?

Yours sincerely,