Syria - Christians in Syria concerned about present situation

Open Doors Website    |   

Printable Version    |   

Forward to a Friend    |   

Contact Us

20 June 2011

 

"Answer me, LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, LORD, are God"
- I Kings 18:37

Syria

Christians in Syria concerned about present situation

"As Christians in Syria, we have been living in peace for a long period of time. The evangelical church including other Christian denominations have been practicing their faith under the current government without any threats or danger. The Christian community has been blessed and protected in the majority Muslim nation of Syria under the current secular regime. It has been our prayer and thanksgiving for the past years where we were able to flourish and live in prosperity and peace with our neighbours and other religious sects.

Since the situation in the Middle East erupted, many small and other self interest groups have been exploiting the situation to achieve their agenda in the region. For example, many extremist foreign fighters have travelled to Iraq and killed innocent Iraqis, Shiites, Sunnis and Christians. These same extremist groups have turned their Jihad to neighbour Syria, exploiting the situation to establish their Islamic Emirate. These groups have been living and operating in Syria during the past three months. They have been entering houses and threatening many Christians and minority groups. They even entered government buildings and murdered men and women for no reason other than working in a government building.

Many of the "peaceful" demonstrations have been shouting, "Christians, your men belong to our sword and your women belong to our pleasure." Other extremist Muslim clerks, who belong to the opposition overseas, are calling the Muslim in Syria to shed the blood of more than one million Christians and Allawits in Syria to make up for the past years where the Christians and other minorities were living in peace.

Other peaceful Muslims in the region are suggesting that Christian in Syria should run away to Lebanon or other nations; however, it is the desire of the Christians to remain living in Syria and never leave their home nation.

We want the people to know that Christians in Syria do exist and we do not want what happened in Iraq to the Christians to happen in Syria to the Christian community. This is not a war for freedom, this is not a war for democracy, it is a sectarian war and if people do not realize what is happening, it will be too late for many minorities group, including the Christian community. Please pray for the Christians in Syria."

Source: Open Doors Middle East

Please pray:

1.      That the outside forces working to turn Syria into an extremist Islamic nation will be pushed back and not succeed in their quest.

2.      For the protection of Christians from those who wish to destroy, abuse and kill them.

3.      That the Christians will have courage as they stand firm and resist fear and the calls to flee their homeland.

With many thanks for your prayers.

Jane
Prayer Communications

 

If you think this Prayer Alert is important
please forward on to your friends

 

To unsubscribe please send an email to epa@opendoorsuk.org with Unsubscribe as the subject heading.
To update your email address, please send an email with Update as the subject heading.

While we welcome people's comments on our Email Prayer Alert and we try to reflect their suggestions we cannot respond individually to emails received from supporters. If you would like to contact Open Doors about any other matter, email info@opendoorsuk.org

©2011 Open Doors UK
All Rights Reserved


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1513/3715 - Release Date: 06/20/11

(download)

On Husbands and Wives

One of the problems we face today is existentialism. This philosophy has permeated pretty much everything about the way people think today. Wrongly, it teaches that since there is ‘no God’, people have no fundamental essence. This means we have to define who we are individually, without any set pattern as to the kind of person we should be. On the whole, feminism is gender existentialism. In other words, we are taught today that there is no such thing as ‘male’ or ‘female’, except biologically. Those with male bodies can perform traditionally feminine functions and vice versa. So the view is that there should be no difference in roles, behaviour, dress, etc. between men and women. Because of this, of course, it becomes perfectly permissible for men to conduct sexual relationships with men, and women with women, though the Bible says this shows a desperate state in terms of where we at with God (Romans 1).

However, as Christians, we do not believe this. We believe that God did create men and women equal in His image (Genesis 1). But at the same time, He did create us distinct; otherwise there would just be one gender. Adam was created first to be the leader; Eve was created next to be the helper. Existentialism and postmodernism reject the concepts of authority and hierarchy. These views do not like the idea that anyone can tell anyone what to do, which of course is a product of the Fall of Adam and Eve, when they told God they didn’t want Him telling them want to do. So, because we as humans don’t like authority, we don’t like the idea of anybody being a leader over us. So from the earliest age, we rebel against our parents and learn very quickly to say NO to what they ask us. It is natural for the fallen man to want to rebel against his boss or his king. It is natural for the fallen woman to want to rebel against her husband. It is natural for the fallen child to rebel against his parents. But as Christians, we are called to submit first to God’s authority, and then the position He has placed us in.

Jesus met a man with great faith, a centurion. This man completely understood about this question of authority, hierarchy and submission. He was in charge of some people, and some other people were in charge of him. He recognised that Jesus is in charge of everything, including sickness and death. With Jesus at the ‘top of the tree’, it wasn’t hard for the centurion humbly to accept his place in the system of things. Jesus Himself, as the Son, has to submit to the Father, even saying that “the Father is greater than I”. So the crucial point here is that being a leader doesn’t make you better or of greater status. In the same way, being a helper or a subordinate doesn’t make you worse or of lower status. The Son is equal with the Father, and yet He still submits to the Father’s authority. A woman is equal with her husband, and yet she still submits to his authority (as long as he is not commanding what God forbids or forbidding what God commands). This is spelled out in 1 Corinthians 11 in the first few verses.

The most important thing to recognise in all of this is our need to submit to God and to trust Him that He has put us in a certain place with certain people in our lives. If we can hold on to that, like the centurion, we will accept the leadership given to us over certain other people in our care (like children or younger Christians, maybe). We will also accept that God has given us people to lead us (like our parents or older Christians, maybe).

The difficulty begins when the person in authority over us disagrees with us. Obviously, we think they are in the wrong and there is nothing in the Bible that says it’s wrong to challenge decisions made by those in authority. Joab rightly challenges his king, David, over a foolish decision to take a census. At the same, Joab still takes the census. God holds David fully responsible for this bad decision, not Joab. So, at the end of the day, if we love and trust God, we must submit to those in authority over us, even if we think their decisions are unwise or annoying to us. Paul makes this point in Romans 13 when it comes to obeying civic authorities, and of course Jesus says we should pay our taxes, even if we think they are unreasonably high. If we think the speed limit is too slow, we should still follow it, not because we agree with it, but because we love God and understand that in submitting to the road authorities, we are actually submitting to His authority.

So, in marriage, a husband and wife will inevitably disagree. It is really important that the husband seeks to be as much like Jesus as possible – in other words, he puts his wife’s feelings, desires, interests, wellbeing, etc. above his own every single day of his life. No husband does this perfectly, but that’s what Ephesians 5 is all about. Equally, a wife should seek to be as much like a perfect church as possible – in other words, she trusts God that her husband is her husband given to her by God, and she is to submit to, follow and help him every single day of her life. No wife does this perfectly, but that’s what Ephesians 5 is all about. One day, as the ultimate ‘wife’, we will submit to and love our ultimate ‘husband’ Jesus. In the meantime, we should seek to play our roles to mirror this perfection.

If a husband makes a dumb decision which doesn’t really take into account his wife’s feelings, should his wife refuse to go along with it? No, she should go along with it, after giving her reasons why she doesn’t agree. And she shouldn’t sulk or try to pay him back or make life hard for him. She should seek to serve him all the more, and help him deal with the fallout when it all goes pear-shaped without ever saying ‘I told you so’!

If a wife refuses to submit to her husband, should her husband stop loving her? No, he should carry on loving her, even if sometimes he has to say that she is hurting him and God. And he shouldn’t sulk or try to pay her back or make life hard for her. He should seek to love, cherish and treasure her all the more, and pray for her, and seek reconciliation every day.

These teachings are incredibly relevant to all of us, and if we really trust God, we will believe Him through thick and thin that being faithful to the roles He has given us will in the end bring great blessing. And there’s nothing better in this life than a functioning marriage, with a deeply, sacrificially loving husband, and a deeply, submissively loving wife.

Thinking About Rick Warren & John Piper

Your email updates, powered by FeedBlitz

 
Here are the FeedBlitz email updates for nmrichardson@ntlworld.com


Thinking About Rick Warren & John Piper

Desiring God Ministries has posted John Piper’s long-awaited interview with Rick Warren. This has brought to completion the invitation Piper extended to Warren to speak at the 2010 Desiring God National Conference. The interview was supposed to happen at that event, but in the end Warren was unable to travel to Minneapolis and the interview was postponed. The men got together on May 1, 2011 and this video is the result.

Today I want to offer up some thoughts on it. I do so because over the years I have come out as a bit of a critic of Rick Warren and his ministry. This is not something I am entirely comfortable with, but it was no surprise to me that when the interview was posted I began to receive questions; people wanted to know what I thought of it. And, frankly, I wanted to know what I thought of it. So what I intend to do in this article is simply let you into my mind as I wrestle through the interview and its implications.

Before I begin, let me say a word about critiquing Warren. Many people seem to imagine that there is some kind of a Calvinist conspiracy against Rick Warren. I will grant that there are many outrageous critics out there who seem to put Warren in the same league as Jezebel and Judas. Despite such people there are many others who have good, legitimate critiques of the man and his ministry. I think we need to be careful that we do not combine these 2 groups—that we do not ignore legitimate critiques because of the outrageous ones.

Having said that, let me tell you where my mind went as I watched and read the interview. I am very glad to hear from you whether my thinking has gone off-track or if I am just plain wrong. The comments are open and I will be reading them as I am able.

1. Awareness

I find myself aware of my youth. As I begin to think through this issue I immediately realize that both of these men are old enough to be my father and I want to be very careful that I do not play the role of the impulsive, self-assured, prideful young(er) man. The Bible commends age and maturity and this leaves me inclined to doubt my own interpretation when it conflicts with those who are older than I am. Both of these men have far more knowledge of Scripture than I do and both have much greater ministry experience. Both have obviously been used by the Lord in unique ways.

And yet their greater age and ministry experience does not mean that I cannot have legitimate concerns. I know that what was true of Rick Warren before I saw this interview is true of him still. And this means that the concerns I had before remain concerns. While I am aware of the age difference between myself and these men, I am also aware of what I am convinced are legitimate concerns.

2. Uncertainty

From awareness I went to uncertainty. I found myself grappling with this question: What does John Piper wish for people to take away from this interview? Piper knows that he is a leader within the church, one who is much admired; he knows of the concerns people have for Warren; he knows that this interview will be widely watched, dissected and interpreted. All of this means that he must want people who watch this interview to come to a certain conclusion. As far as I can tell, that conclusion is this: Rick Warren has been misinterpreted and misunderstood. The implication is that he is an orthodox brother in Christ, and that Piper is leading us to see that many of Warren’s critics are being unjust toward him.

This is one of the takeaways I am seeing in the blogosphere and in comments left right here at my web site. My friend Timmy Brister seemed to say this in an article he posted at his blog where he marvelled at the theological agreement between the 2 men. A commenter at my blog wrote “Hope you will have the integrity to comment on the interview Tim, as it shows some of your previous critiques might have been off and misplaced. Very good interview, and helpful in showing just what a sharp, Bible-loving pastor Rick Warren is.”

3. Confusion

I find myself confused with this. Now hear me say that I love John Piper. I admire him a great deal, I’ve benefitted immensely from his ministry and on the few occasions I have spent time with him, have enjoyed him on a personal level. My disappointment in no way means I am turning on him or negating all that his ministry has meant to me. I feel like I need to repeat this so it does not get lost in the noise. I love and admire John Piper.

And yet I find that I disagree with his conclusion. And here is why: I do not think he has given us an accurate understanding of Rick Warren or his ministry. It has given us a very partial understanding, one based on a very limited scope of conversation. I do not think there is any malice here or any intent to deceive. It’s just reality as I understand it.

This interview was meant to be a frank one. Piper asked Warren some of the questions that people have been wondering. He asked about the gospel, about the existence of hell, about preaching philosophy, about God’s sovereignty, about the doctrines of grace. Yet, because Piper’s questions were based almost entirely on the text of The Purpose Driven Life, the interview was narrow in scope. And because it was an “appreciative interview” it steered away from some of the book’s most pronounced concerns. The fact is, though, that there is far more to Rick Warren than this 1 book. He has written several books; he has preached thousands of sermons; he has written other things and spoken other places.

As the interview drew to a close I saw that many of the predominant concerns I have with The Purpose Driven Life as well as Warren’s wider ministry went unaddressed. Let me speak to just 2 of them. And I think this is the crux of what I am saying in all of this—we do not have to change our critiques of Rick Warren based on this interview. What he said in this interview simply does not correlate to the facts of his books and ministry.

A Theological Chameleon
One of the most common critiques of Rick Warren and one of the most important is that he is something of a chameleon. There is a kind of pragmatism to him where he will be A and Not A depending on the context. I have little confidence that in a different context Warren would have answered the questions the same way. I am not saying that he outright lied to Piper, but simply that his track record shows that he adapts to fit the context.

Warren has been lauded in the secular media for speaking for a long time to a large group of Jewish leaders without ever using the name of Jesus. He is now being lauded by Calvinists for affirming the doctrines of grace. He has received praise from Roman Catholics. After all, he recently wrote the introduction to a special edition of TIME magazine that celebrated the life of Mother Teresa. This introduction praises the woman and holds her up as a model of Christian virtue. There Warren tells about a handwritten note by Mother Teresa that adorns the wall of his office. He proclaims that Mother Teresa “offered the same unconditional love our Savior did. By being the hands and feet of Jesus, this petite Albanian nun became one of the great evangelists of the 20th century.” He declared her “exhibit A of a true hero—a saint.” Mother Teresa, though, was a Catholic of Catholics, a devout follower of her church. She was also a universalist and one who saw no reason to seek to convert people to the gospel.

I think I am right to be confused here, right to ask questions. How do the doctrines of grace allow for an ardent Roman Catholic, one who denied those doctrines as anathema, to exemplify the Christian faith, to be a true hero—a saint? Surely I am not the only one who sees a contradiction. Surely I am not wrong to balk at Warren teaching Jewish rabbis how to increase the strength of their congregations.

Warren gave all the right answers in this interview, but I am not at all convinced that they reflect what he truly believes at all times and in all contexts. And certainly his ministry does not appear to bear out the kind of theological underpinnings that would reflect the theology he espouses here. Where is the influence of Edwards? Where is the monergism? Where do we see a belief in total depravity consistently applied in any of his books?

Use of Scripture
Another very common critique of Rick Warren and his books concerns the use of Scripture. Throughout The Purpose Driven Life he consistently and unapologetically tears verses from their context and applies them haphazardly, relying on a long list of translations and paraphrases to do so. Examples abound and would probably number in the hundreds; these are very well documented and very widely known.

Piper spoke to Warren about Scripture but stopped short of asking about his use of Scripture. If I were to preach in my church and Scripture as Warren does, I would be rebuked and I would deserve the rebuke. If a man stood in the pulpit of Bethlehem Baptist Church and used Scripture as Warren does, he would be rebuked as well, I am convinced. We do not want men to learn from Warren how to preach, how to use Scripture! He does not treat the Word of God as the very words of God. He can speak of his indebtedness to Edwards and Spurgeon and others, but his preaching shows very little of their influence.

These are just 2 critiques that remain unaddressed—very important critiques that seem to get to the heart of what he truly believes.

4. Unconvinced

There is still a pronounced gap between what Warren says in this interview and what he says elsewhere. And there is just as large a gap between what Warren says here and what his ministry bears out. Saying all that he said and affirming all that he affirmed is not enough; he also needs to show it. But he has not done that. The reason everyone was so surprised that Warren is Reformed is that he has never given us any reason to imagine such a thing. As Michael Horton wrote in a review of The Purpose Driven Life, “Judging by The Purpose-Driven Life, Pastor Warren’s theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism, especially with its emphasis on the new birth as the result of human decision and cooperation with grace.  There are also heavy traces of Keswick ‘higher life’ teaching throughout the book.” What he says in this interview is not at all consistent with what he has shown through his ministry. So why would we believe that it’s true?

Now hear me say that the fact that his theology is “run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism” does not mean that he is not a Christian; it does not mean that he cannot be a godly man or a good pastor. But it does mean that it is not Reformed, because A cannot also be Not A.

I love John Piper (I already said that, right?). I’m glad that he has risen to a position of leadership within the church. But this interview has not at all convinced me to retract what I believe about Rick Warren. I firmly believe that those who have respectfully offered measured critiques of Warren and his ministry—substantial and important critiques—have done so for good reason. And those reasons remain.


Sponsor:

 

 

More Recent Articles

God doesn't think it's funny...

...when we say 'for God's sake' to express our unbelief. The Third Commandment says that He will not find anyone guiltless who abuses His Name.

http://census-campaign.org.uk/support-the-campaign/pledge/

What I'd Have to Deny to Deny Hell (by Tim Challies)

What I'd Have to Deny to Deny Hell and more...

What I'd Have to Deny to Deny Hell

Hell

Everyone is talking about the existence of hell. Is hell a real place? Is it a literal place of literal torment? It seems that this issue snuck up on us a little bit. Just a month ago a book came out titled Don’t Call It a Comeback. In that book several of the “young, restless, Reformed” authors (myself included) penned chapters discussing issues pertinent to the church today: the gospel, the new birth, Scripture, social justice, homosexuality. These are some of the big issues in the church today and tomorrow. But there is no chapter on hell (the index shows only 2 references to it).

And yet here we are with discussion raging on the existence and nature of hell. This weekend, as I thought about this controversy, I allowed myself a little thought experiment. What would I have to deny in order to deny hell? If I am ever to come to the point of denying the existence of hell, what will be the doctrinal cost of getting there? Though I am sure there is much more that could be said, I came up with four denials.

I Will Deny What Jesus Taught

Jesus believed in the literal existence of a literal hell. It is very difficult to read Luke 16 (the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus) and arrive at any other conclusion except that Jesus believed in hell and that he believed in a hell of conscious torment of body and mind.

The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’

Jesus also believed in the permanence of hell: “[B]esides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.” In Matthew’s gospel Jesus speaks of hell as the furnace of fire, the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. He calls it a place of everlasting fire. This would be strange language for a man to use if he believed that hell did not exist and that it was not a place of horrible torment.

If I am going to deny the existence of hell, I will need to outright deny what Jesus teaches and declare that he is wrong, or I will need to obscure what is so plain. I will need to make all of Jesus’ language symbolic and all of the meaning something other than what is clear. I will need to deny what Jesus says.

I Will Deny the Plain Sense of Scripture

Time would fail me here to provide an extensive look at the concept of hell in the Bible; time would fail me to look at each of the words associated with hell. But one does not need to be an expert on the Bible or on its original languages to see that it teaches clearly that there is life after death and that this life after death will involve joy or torment, it will involve enjoying the loving presence of God or facing his wrathful presence. This is stated explicitly in Scripture and it is stated implicitly. It is in the Old Testament and comes to full form in the New Testament. Those who wrote Scripture believed that hell existed and made it plain in what they wrote.

If I am going to deny the existence of hell, I will have to do a great deal of redefining, a great deal of reinterpreting. As with the teaching of Jesus, I will need to change what is plain to what is symbolic, I will need to take what is clear and make it obscure. There is no getting around the fact that a plain, honest reading of the Bible teaches the existence of hell.

I Will Deny the Testimony of the Church

If I am to deny the existence of hell, I will be denying what has been the near-unanimous testimony of the Christian church through the ages. From the church’s earliest days until today, hell has been understood as a place of conscious, eternal torment. The Westminster Larger Catechism offers an apt summary of what Christians have long believed: “The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell fire forever.” Though this was formed in the days of Reformation, it depends upon the testimony of Christians who came before. And it informed generations that followed.

If I am to deny that hell is a real place, if I am to deny that hell is that kind of place, I will be turning my back on two thousand years of Christian history—on two thousand years of brothers and sisters in Christ who had great knowledge of Scripture. I’ll grant that there are times this is necessary; there are times that many Christians are wrong about many things. But such a decision must be made with great fear and trembling and only on the basis of overwhelming Scriptural evidence.

I Will Deny the Gospel

I cannot deny hell without utterly changing the gospel message. The message of Christ dying for the lost in order to save their souls will be meaningless. If there is no hell, there is really nothing to lose. And so heaven and hell must be brought to earth, they must be seen as present realities rather than future ones. The Baptist preacher J.L. Dagg said it well: “To appreciate justly and fully the gospel of eternal salvation we must believe the doctrine of eternal damnation.” If I am going to deny eternal damnation, I must radically rewrite the gospel. Gone is the gospel of sinners who have committed treason against God and who call upon themselves God’s just wrath. There are many gospels I can put in its place. But what is clear is that this gospel, this gospel of a substitutionary atonement must be a casualty. This gospel stands and falls upon the existence of both heaven and hell. Take away either one and you gut the gospel; it becomes meaningless and nonsensical.

If I am going to give up hell, I am going to give up the gospel and replace it with a new one.

Let me close with some words from the great theologian Robert Dabney. What he says here I believe as well. “Sure I am, that if hell can be disproved in any way that is solid and true, and consistent with God’s honor and man’s good, there is not a trembling sinner in this land that would hail the demonstration with more joy than I would.” It’s not that I want hell to be true, but that the Scripture makes it clear that it is true. It is not for me to dismantle the doctrine or to deny it; I am simply to believe it and to live and act as if it is true.

Pakistan - Christian cabinet minister assassinated

Please add epa@opendoorsuk.org to your contact list to ensure that you continue to receive our Prayer alert
If this mail does not display correctly please click here

Open Doors Website    |   

Printable Version    |   

Forward to a Friend    |   

Contact Us

4 March 2011

 

"If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross, and follow me. If you try to hang on to your life, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will save it."
Mark 8:34-35 (NLT)

Pakistan

Christian cabinet minister assassinated

This week, unidentified gunmen in Islamabad shot dead Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti.

The assailants sprayed bullets at Bhatti’s car after he came out of his mother’s home in a residential area of Islamabad to attend a cabinet meeting.

Bhatti, a 42-year-old bachelor, was Pakistan’s only cabinet-level Christian and an outspoken critic of the country’s widely condemned blasphemy laws. Suspected Islamic extremists from Pakistan’s Taliban and al Qaeda reportedly left a letter at the scene saying those who try to change Pakistan’s blasphemy laws would be killed.

The murder comes two months after Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was killed by his bodyguard for supporting Asia Bibi, the first Christian woman to be sentenced to death in Pakistan on blasphemy charges.

Bhatti had defied death threats after the assassination of Taseer, conceding in several interviews that he was ‘the highest target right now’, but vowing to continue his work and trusting his life to God. The federal government had provided bodyguards for Bhatti, but they were not present at the time of the attack.

In a recent interview with the BBC, Bhatti had said he was ‘ready to die for a cause’ as a Christian. "I am living for my community and suffering people, and I will die to defend their rights," he said. “These threats and warnings cannot change my opinion and principles."

Open Doors founder Brother Andrew, who knew Bhatti well, expressed great sadness at the news. "I am deeply shocked," he said. "But this is the price we sometimes have to pay for change.

"Bhatti had a responsibility as the Federal Minister of Minority Affairs and a moral responsibility as a Christian to fight this horrendous law. He took his responsibility. We lost a valuable human being, but not hope. God is still in Pakistan. He’s building His church and will finish His work, just as the Bible promises."

Source: Compass Direct

Please pray:

1.      For comfort for Bhatti’s family. Ask God to give them grace to forgive their persecutors.

2.      For courage and protection for the Pakistani Christian minority, who are deeply shaken by the incident.

3.      That Bhatti’s assailants would be brought to justice, and that the government would have courage to respond to international pressure to reform the blasphemy laws.

With many thanks for your prayers.

Jane
Prayer Communications

 

To unsubscribe please send an email to epa@opendoorsuk.org with Unsubscribe as the subject heading.
To update your email address, please send an email with Update as the subject heading.

While we welcome people's comments on our Email Prayer Alert and we try to reflect their suggestions we cannot respond individually to emails received from supporters. If you would like to contact Open Doors about any other matter, email info@opendoorsuk.org

©2011 Open Doors UK
All Rights Reserved


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3467 - Release Date: 02/25/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.

(download)

Reeling...

… and rubbing my eyes and ears.

Question Time.

David Starkey, proudly announcing himself as gay and atheist, has condemned the banning of the Christian foster parents who said they would discourage children in their care from homosexuality. He then went on to denounce the opprobrium heaped on the B&B owners who were defeated in court because they politely refused to let two gay men stay in the same room.

Ian Duncan Smith, often considered sympathetic to the Christian cause, has endorsed this banning.

The moral compass of this nation is spinning wildly because truth lies fallen in the street. It’s bizarre, embarrassing and scary that we have to look to people like Peter Tatchell and David Starkey to defend the civil liberties of Christians in the UK. You can forget putting trust in the Conservative Party to roll back all the anti-libertarian measures taken by New Labour.

A waffle I made earlier

P54

Waffle, spread, jam, banana, Ben & Jerry's Half Baked ice cream, squirty cream, toffee sauce. So wrong, it's right.

Dispatches - Lessons in Hate and Violence - Channel 4

Dispatches: Lessons in Hate and Violence

Dispatches goes undercover to investigate allegations that teachers regularly assault young children in some of the 2,000 Muslim schools in Britain run by Islamic organisations.

The programme also follows up allegations that, behind closed doors, some Muslim secondary schools teach a message of hatred and intolerance.

The programme is presented by reporter Tazeen Ahmad.

Dispatches: Lessons in Hate and Violence will not be available on 4oD at this time, due to an ongoing police investigation concerning subjects featured in the programme.

This programme will be on 4oD as soon as possible after broadcast.

Those clean-shaven fellas! Never trust them! Only those who have at least a fist-full of beard.
So says the teacher in the madrassa. And thus once again we see Religion's focus on the outer man, as a way of bypassing what really counts: a new heart given by grace through faith in the Son of God. "No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God" (Romans 2:29).

About

We at Evangelical Tract Society are here to provide you with Biblical, high quality, affordable tracts with readable text and colourful layouts.

TwitterFacebookFlickr