Friday, 21 July 2017
Saturday, 8 July 2017
More on John Stevens' capitulation
Following on from http://mothwo.blogspot.com/2017/07/has-fiec-capitulated-on-homosexual.html.
I came across John Stevens' opposition to "gay marriage", just 5 years ago at http://www.john-stevens.com/2012/02/fiec-news-c4m-coalition-for-marriage.html. There are also some quotes at http://www.christian.org.uk/news/fiec-director-urges-christians-to-defend-marriage/
Yet now, just five years later, he opposes "those that have consistently stood against the grant of any civic rights and freedoms to the LBGT community", and distances himself from them, as if they were third parties. He continues "It is hardly surprising that the gay community is suspicious of the political objectives of evangelical Christians. Christians need to adopt a political philosophy that is appropriate for a genuinely plural society that encompasses both believers and unbelievers." Yet, who are these third parties that Stevens critiques? Himself! Does he really think that what he calls "the gay community" (or to use a more Biblical perspective: a mob of those bent on serious evil) are going to read him calling their agenda "Wrong", "Unnecessary", "Dishonourable", "Arrogant", "Opportunistic", "Unpopular", "Insidious", "Dangerous", and then not be suspicious of his "political agenda"? Really?
We should never repent of following Biblical teaching. Stevens has shifted his position, but under the guise of criticising other, unnamed evangelical Christians who have held to that Biblical teaching. In 2012, he correctly called the campaign for rebranding and promoting gross sexual immorality as "marriage" accurately, according to what it is - wrong, unnecessary, dishonourable, arrogant, opportunistic, unpopular, insidious, dangerous. In 2017, he says that people who speak like this are a danger to the Christian church, and that it is "urgent" (his word) to "advocate for a truly plural society in which they value the rights and freedoms of other communities as well as their own."
Is there not something deeply "dishonourable" about doing a 180 on your position, under the guise of criticising third parties who continue to say precisely what the Christian church has always said, what you said until a short time ago, and neglecting to explain that the position that you are criticising was your own position? Yes, there is. Is it not wrong for a shepherd to say that the sheep were wrong to do what he encouraged them to do, without openly explaining that that's what you're doing? Yes, it is. And, as I said yesterday, the rot and compromise on the homosexual issue has now apparently reached into the heart of FIEC, the UK's foremost organisation for independent evangelical churches.
A few short years ago, we had the revolting spectacle of seeing Conservative MPs, who as a majority voted against "gay marriage", then doing a swift 180-degree turn, explaining that they were now for it (because their careers now depended on it), and that their positions had changed. We sigh, we lament, and understand that politicians are politicians. When those with a Christian profession did it (e.g. Nicky Morgan, Tim Farron), we sighed and groaned and cried out to God for mercy. But at least we contented ourselves that conservative evangelical leaders were holding the line. But instead, the leader of the FIEC is advocating that we support the homosexual agenda in society, whilst retreating into the quietness of our churches and hoping that the world will leave us alone there. His goal is that the "gay rights" movement will not be suspicious of his political agenda, and leave him in peace. This goal only developed once he realised that they had the upper hand ... in 2012, when there was still a chance, he spoke very differently. Apparently, his principles depend on the political mood, not on unchanging truths. Sad, sad, so sad. May God have mercy!
I came across John Stevens' opposition to "gay marriage", just 5 years ago at http://www.john-stevens.com/2012/02/fiec-news-c4m-coalition-for-marriage.html. There are also some quotes at http://www.christian.org.uk/news/fiec-director-urges-christians-to-defend-marriage/
The gay community is a tiny percentage of the population as a whole, but they exercise inordinate power through their vociferous lobbying.In the post, he calls the proposals for "gay marriage": "Wrong", "Unnecessary", "Dishonourable", "Arrogant", "Opportunistic", "Unpopular", "Insidious", "Dangerous".
Yet now, just five years later, he opposes "those that have consistently stood against the grant of any civic rights and freedoms to the LBGT community", and distances himself from them, as if they were third parties. He continues "It is hardly surprising that the gay community is suspicious of the political objectives of evangelical Christians. Christians need to adopt a political philosophy that is appropriate for a genuinely plural society that encompasses both believers and unbelievers." Yet, who are these third parties that Stevens critiques? Himself! Does he really think that what he calls "the gay community" (or to use a more Biblical perspective: a mob of those bent on serious evil) are going to read him calling their agenda "Wrong", "Unnecessary", "Dishonourable", "Arrogant", "Opportunistic", "Unpopular", "Insidious", "Dangerous", and then not be suspicious of his "political agenda"? Really?
We should never repent of following Biblical teaching. Stevens has shifted his position, but under the guise of criticising other, unnamed evangelical Christians who have held to that Biblical teaching. In 2012, he correctly called the campaign for rebranding and promoting gross sexual immorality as "marriage" accurately, according to what it is - wrong, unnecessary, dishonourable, arrogant, opportunistic, unpopular, insidious, dangerous. In 2017, he says that people who speak like this are a danger to the Christian church, and that it is "urgent" (his word) to "advocate for a truly plural society in which they value the rights and freedoms of other communities as well as their own."
Is there not something deeply "dishonourable" about doing a 180 on your position, under the guise of criticising third parties who continue to say precisely what the Christian church has always said, what you said until a short time ago, and neglecting to explain that the position that you are criticising was your own position? Yes, there is. Is it not wrong for a shepherd to say that the sheep were wrong to do what he encouraged them to do, without openly explaining that that's what you're doing? Yes, it is. And, as I said yesterday, the rot and compromise on the homosexual issue has now apparently reached into the heart of FIEC, the UK's foremost organisation for independent evangelical churches.
A few short years ago, we had the revolting spectacle of seeing Conservative MPs, who as a majority voted against "gay marriage", then doing a swift 180-degree turn, explaining that they were now for it (because their careers now depended on it), and that their positions had changed. We sigh, we lament, and understand that politicians are politicians. When those with a Christian profession did it (e.g. Nicky Morgan, Tim Farron), we sighed and groaned and cried out to God for mercy. But at least we contented ourselves that conservative evangelical leaders were holding the line. But instead, the leader of the FIEC is advocating that we support the homosexual agenda in society, whilst retreating into the quietness of our churches and hoping that the world will leave us alone there. His goal is that the "gay rights" movement will not be suspicious of his political agenda, and leave him in peace. This goal only developed once he realised that they had the upper hand ... in 2012, when there was still a chance, he spoke very differently. Apparently, his principles depend on the political mood, not on unchanging truths. Sad, sad, so sad. May God have mercy!
Has the FIEC capitulated on the homosexual agenda?
John Stevens is national director of the FIEC. In this blog post - http://www.john-stevens.com/2017/06/tim-farrons-resignation-how-should.html - he has many good things to say.... but unfortunately ruins it all by taking the position that Christians have only themselves to blame if homosexual rights' activists think that evangelical churches are not on their side. He says:
The fact that Mr. Stevens considers that Christian organisations who have been speaking up clearly and straightforwardly on these matters have been doing wrong, is absolutely disastrous. It shows that the rot of propaganda in the name of dreadful perversity has now reached right to the core of conservative evangelicalism. The fact that Mr. Stevens considers that capitulating is actually the *virtuous* thing to do is a thing that should make Bible-believing Christians weep.
Steven's stated position is that what is widely accepted in society ought to be the yardstick of what Christians seek for, and campaign for in the public space. On that basis, we should not just give up the fight against the homosexual agenda, and the current push for radical "transexual" ideology being pushed on our children (e.g. very aggressively by Ofsted), but a whole host of other issues too. Why fight against abortion? Against sexual immorality of any kind? The culture and society are against us. So why not just give up? "Pluralism" is such a warm and fuzzy word after all, isn't it?
Surely the answer to those questions has something to do with the Creator's rights over his creation? To be sure, the Bible recognises that sometimes laws will exist "because of the hardness of men's hearts". Churches are not an alternative police force. We must live, as much as possible, within the framework that we find ourselves in. But this has absolutely nothing to do with changing our theology, and handing over the world to the devil simply because people don't like what their Maker has to say about things. It has nothing to do with making peace with sin, and retreating into our homes and churches so that we only preach about it among the faithful, whilst leaving the rest of the world to rot.
There is more in the comment I wrote on Mr. Stevens' blog piece: http://www.john-stevens.com/2017/06/tim-farrons-resignation-how-should.html
One final thing. In case you think I'm too strong, notice the first comment, from one of the sheep, as he listens to this shepherd. What's his take-away? "A really helpful article. Thanks. It helped me think afresh on what it means to be a pluralist society, and challenged my opinion of some evangelical organisations who advocate and lobby parliament to uphold traditional Christian practices." As I say - this is a disaster.
First, some of the organisations that have been most vociferous in condemning the intolerance that led to the resignation of Tim Farron are those that have consistently stood against the grant of any civic rights and freedoms to the LBGT community. It is hardly surprising that the gay community is suspicious of the political objectives of evangelical Christians. Christians need to adopt a political philosophy that is appropriate for a genuinely plural society that encompasses both believers and unbelievers.This view is disastrous. Firstly, since we are God's spokesmen, let us speak as God does. In the Bible, you will not find anything like the vocabulary of this paragraph. The Bible does not recognise such a thing as "the LBGT (sic) community" or "the gay community". This is not a Biblical way of speaking. People who choose to define themselves by, and campaign for approval of, what Scripture labels as serious depravity and rebellion as the Creator, are not a "community". There is no "gay community" any more than there is a "murderer's community", "adulterer's community" or "thieves' community". It takes a few decades of aggressive brainwashing before we start to forget these simple things, but in theory, in the churches of Jesus Christ we're regularly instructed on God's point of view and taught to think straight about such things - aren't we? Secondly, what does John Stevens mean by "the grant of any civic rights and freedoms to the LBGT community"? It is now over 50 years since private homosexual activity was decriminalised. Since then, the various political fights have been over such things as:
- Whether it should be compulsory for schoolchildren to be indoctrinated in homosexualist ideology, or whether they should be protected form it (Section 28)
- Whether children have a right to a father and a mother, or whether they should be treated as trophies, and homosexuals permitted to adopt them.
- Whether Christians should be forced, on pain of losing their livelihoods, to promote homosexual ideology (e.g. by being forced to publish homosexual propagranda, write homosexual propaganda on wedding cakes, etc.), or whether they should retain the freedom to have and live according to their own views.
- Whether marriage should be redefined so that it no longer is a fixed entity, reflecting the fixed thoughts and will of our Creator, but should instead be a political football reflecting the arbitrary will of a majority of 600-odd MPs, which today means, promoting homosexual depravity as fully equal to actual marriage.
- Whether it should be a crime to seek to help a person who experiences homosexual temptation to seek to deny and/or re-orient his desires, through the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than teaching him to embrace them as his core identity.
The fact that Mr. Stevens considers that Christian organisations who have been speaking up clearly and straightforwardly on these matters have been doing wrong, is absolutely disastrous. It shows that the rot of propaganda in the name of dreadful perversity has now reached right to the core of conservative evangelicalism. The fact that Mr. Stevens considers that capitulating is actually the *virtuous* thing to do is a thing that should make Bible-believing Christians weep.
Steven's stated position is that what is widely accepted in society ought to be the yardstick of what Christians seek for, and campaign for in the public space. On that basis, we should not just give up the fight against the homosexual agenda, and the current push for radical "transexual" ideology being pushed on our children (e.g. very aggressively by Ofsted), but a whole host of other issues too. Why fight against abortion? Against sexual immorality of any kind? The culture and society are against us. So why not just give up? "Pluralism" is such a warm and fuzzy word after all, isn't it?
Surely the answer to those questions has something to do with the Creator's rights over his creation? To be sure, the Bible recognises that sometimes laws will exist "because of the hardness of men's hearts". Churches are not an alternative police force. We must live, as much as possible, within the framework that we find ourselves in. But this has absolutely nothing to do with changing our theology, and handing over the world to the devil simply because people don't like what their Maker has to say about things. It has nothing to do with making peace with sin, and retreating into our homes and churches so that we only preach about it among the faithful, whilst leaving the rest of the world to rot.
There is more in the comment I wrote on Mr. Stevens' blog piece: http://www.john-stevens.com/2017/06/tim-farrons-resignation-how-should.html
One final thing. In case you think I'm too strong, notice the first comment, from one of the sheep, as he listens to this shepherd. What's his take-away? "A really helpful article. Thanks. It helped me think afresh on what it means to be a pluralist society, and challenged my opinion of some evangelical organisations who advocate and lobby parliament to uphold traditional Christian practices." As I say - this is a disaster.
Saturday, 1 July 2017
Persistent alarm bells for home educators
Whether you are a home educator or not ("First they came for the
Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist."),
please read this, pass it on, and write to your MP:
http://christiansineducation.co.uk/persistent-alarm-bells-for-home-educators/
Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist."),
please read this, pass it on, and write to your MP:
http://christiansineducation.co.uk/persistent-alarm-bells-for-home-educators/
Friday, 30 June 2017
Reminder: Luke 12v48 still exists
I won't quote it - because if you are in a good enough position to be
able to own computers, Internet, read blogs, and don't know it without
looking it up, then now's the moment to fix that!
able to own computers, Internet, read blogs, and don't know it without
looking it up, then now's the moment to fix that!
Wednesday, 28 June 2017
Monday, 12 June 2017
The tares continue to grow in the field of our children's education. Does the wheat?
In my view, too many Christians in the West have the hopeful view that
the tares will very politely reach a point at which they decide to stop
growing, before the harvest. That, once evil has reached a certain
stage, it will stop, allowing Christians to pretty much continue to
enjoy the freedoms they still enjoy. And so, mercifully, we can all just
stick our heads in the sand at hope that problems will go away without
us doing much about them.
So, we don't need to build alternative structures to support us for when the tares reach a certain height, to be ready. In particular, we don't need any alternative structures to raise and educate our children, because the state's provision is still more or less approximate to how it was many decades ago. Any small defects can be made up for with half-an-hour's Sunday school and a bit of youth group too, surely?
Meanwhile, in the real world, just as A leads to B and B leads to C, so the people who are actually in charge of the state systems career on with the next stage, which is legislative frameworks permitting "early intervention" to remove your children if they are judged to be "in danger" of being exposed to supposedly damaging Christian world-views: http://christiantimes.com/article/ontario-approves-measure-that-allows-government-to-take-children-from-parents-who-oppose-gender-ideology/72273.htm. It turns out all that stuff about tolerance, freedom and respect was spoken with a forked tongue. Who knew, other than everybody who was paying attention?
This is how the war of the world-views works. It's a war. It might be the case that some bits of territory were not the strategic place for the battle to begin, when the sexual revolution was first launched. But that in no way means that the other side don't intend to establish their complete rule over those bits of territory eventually. They're close now. Is it time to wake up yet? What will our generation of Christians' legacy be to the one after us, in terms of preserving our freedoms to teach Biblical truth to our children, that God created mankind to be male and female, and that our role is to submit to his will, not to fight against it? What will we hand those coming next, when we pass the baton? "Well chaps, the enemy's now arrived at the gate, and we've been experimenting with some pea-shooters, because frankly we don't expect them to actually use those battering rams they're lining up over there. We're pretty sure they've done all the advancing they planned on. They keep shouting and screaming about 'tolerance', so I'm sure what they really mean with those cannons over there is that they plans some advanced tolerance manoeuvres but not to disturb our peace in any way. Have fun! If things get really sticky, we have some large sticks in a cupboard somewhere, though we lost the keys and you'll need to look for them."
I'm not advocating a fear-based, "circling the wagons" agenda. I'm advocating sensible, confident, God-trusting measures to make sure that we do what the Bible tells us to do: raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. A clear-headed recognition that teaching our children to love and fear God in every area of life is our job, not the state's job. That if we involve the state, that's an option, our responsibility, and something to do only if it's clear that the state will not undermine our efforts to teach them about Christ. A withdrawal from having our children taught how to work and think by people who have no place for God and who actively resist him in theory and practice, is not a withdrawal from the world: it is a withdrawing of our children from being harmed by the world. We must always be building relationships with non-believers, so that we can shine the light of Christ's love to them. But that is quite different to handing over major sections of our children's indoctrination to them.
What, practically, needs to be done? Bible-believing churches in each area need to meet together, according to their size and strength, agree on the need for Christian education for their children, and start the hard graft of planning how to open Christian schools, staffed by people convinced that the Bible is God's word as well as being gifted in a calling to teach the children. This needed to begin about 35 years ago, when the future direction of society was very clear. But it is better late than never. God is patient and merciful, and there is still time. But we need to respond to that. There has to be a call to action. Elders need to meet about this subject, and make concrete plans. Wishful thinking has been tried, and is doing nothing for the next generation. Christians used to routinely educate non-Christians in ways of thinking that flowed from Scripture. It is now the other way round. Non-Christians routinely indoctrinate the children of Christians in how to think and act like non-Christians, every day. How, in practical terms, will we reverse this situation for as many children as we can? We need to not just wish that it were otherwise, but work out what means God has placed at hand for us to do it - and start the doing.
So, we don't need to build alternative structures to support us for when the tares reach a certain height, to be ready. In particular, we don't need any alternative structures to raise and educate our children, because the state's provision is still more or less approximate to how it was many decades ago. Any small defects can be made up for with half-an-hour's Sunday school and a bit of youth group too, surely?
Meanwhile, in the real world, just as A leads to B and B leads to C, so the people who are actually in charge of the state systems career on with the next stage, which is legislative frameworks permitting "early intervention" to remove your children if they are judged to be "in danger" of being exposed to supposedly damaging Christian world-views: http://christiantimes.com/article/ontario-approves-measure-that-allows-government-to-take-children-from-parents-who-oppose-gender-ideology/72273.htm. It turns out all that stuff about tolerance, freedom and respect was spoken with a forked tongue. Who knew, other than everybody who was paying attention?
This is how the war of the world-views works. It's a war. It might be the case that some bits of territory were not the strategic place for the battle to begin, when the sexual revolution was first launched. But that in no way means that the other side don't intend to establish their complete rule over those bits of territory eventually. They're close now. Is it time to wake up yet? What will our generation of Christians' legacy be to the one after us, in terms of preserving our freedoms to teach Biblical truth to our children, that God created mankind to be male and female, and that our role is to submit to his will, not to fight against it? What will we hand those coming next, when we pass the baton? "Well chaps, the enemy's now arrived at the gate, and we've been experimenting with some pea-shooters, because frankly we don't expect them to actually use those battering rams they're lining up over there. We're pretty sure they've done all the advancing they planned on. They keep shouting and screaming about 'tolerance', so I'm sure what they really mean with those cannons over there is that they plans some advanced tolerance manoeuvres but not to disturb our peace in any way. Have fun! If things get really sticky, we have some large sticks in a cupboard somewhere, though we lost the keys and you'll need to look for them."
I'm not advocating a fear-based, "circling the wagons" agenda. I'm advocating sensible, confident, God-trusting measures to make sure that we do what the Bible tells us to do: raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. A clear-headed recognition that teaching our children to love and fear God in every area of life is our job, not the state's job. That if we involve the state, that's an option, our responsibility, and something to do only if it's clear that the state will not undermine our efforts to teach them about Christ. A withdrawal from having our children taught how to work and think by people who have no place for God and who actively resist him in theory and practice, is not a withdrawal from the world: it is a withdrawing of our children from being harmed by the world. We must always be building relationships with non-believers, so that we can shine the light of Christ's love to them. But that is quite different to handing over major sections of our children's indoctrination to them.
What, practically, needs to be done? Bible-believing churches in each area need to meet together, according to their size and strength, agree on the need for Christian education for their children, and start the hard graft of planning how to open Christian schools, staffed by people convinced that the Bible is God's word as well as being gifted in a calling to teach the children. This needed to begin about 35 years ago, when the future direction of society was very clear. But it is better late than never. God is patient and merciful, and there is still time. But we need to respond to that. There has to be a call to action. Elders need to meet about this subject, and make concrete plans. Wishful thinking has been tried, and is doing nothing for the next generation. Christians used to routinely educate non-Christians in ways of thinking that flowed from Scripture. It is now the other way round. Non-Christians routinely indoctrinate the children of Christians in how to think and act like non-Christians, every day. How, in practical terms, will we reverse this situation for as many children as we can? We need to not just wish that it were otherwise, but work out what means God has placed at hand for us to do it - and start the doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
