eChurch Blog

A very encouraging cross-post from Bill Muehlenberg. Note the Scripture from Peter:-

In the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.

“Scoffers” is such an apt description of some of the atheists I come across, to be fair though, I was once myself a scoffer of all things Christian.

The World is Coming to an End

Most cultures and religious traditions have as part of their beliefs and overall worldview the idea that the current world will in one fashion or another come to an end.  There are various apocalyptic scenarios out there, some more negative than others, and some more alarmist than others.

If the world is indeed going to wind down or come to some cataclysmic end, the interesting question is how do people respond to this realisation? How do people cope if they are convinced that life as we know it may not last much longer? I saw just recently one way in which people might respond.

The ads during the American Super Bowl are often just as amazing and entertaining as the game itself. They have to be, given that the screening of just one 30 second ad can cost up to a cool $3 million. Thus some of the most remarkable ads ever seen usually come out during this three hour extravaganza.

Some of these ads were featured in yesterday’s Australian telecast of the event. One of the ads caught my eye. It featured a number of workers in an observatory. A scientist, peering though a telescope, looking at an incoming asteroid, proclaims that it’s going to destroy the earth.

The response? Six-packs of Bud Light beer are passed around as the men and women decide they will have a wild party while they await their doom. Well, that is one way to deal with the end of the world. And it is not a very novel approach. The saying, ‘Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die’ has been around for quite some time.

But that is not the only way to prepare for the end of the world. Jesus for example had much to say about the topic. Indeed, the Bible as a whole has plenty of discussion about this theme. There is far too much material to cover here, so let me focus on just two passages.

The third chapter of 2 Peter is all about the end of the world, or more accurately, the Day of the Lord. It specifically addresses those who question Christ’s return, and in fact mock the very notion. Says Peter, “in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation’” (vv. 3-4).

Here the idea is that the world will keep going, so why worry? Jesus had mentioned similar things in the Olivet Discourse when he said that when he returns, it will be just like in the days of Noah: people will be carrying on with their normal activities, and will be oblivious to what is about to occur (Matt. 24:36-39).

So too Peter states that most people will be just carrying on with business as usual. They not only do not believe in the Lord’s return, but scoff at the very notion of future judgment as well. But Peter argues quite the opposite: Christ certainly will come in his own time, and he will come as judge.

The fact that he has not yet returned is not an indication of his slowness in keeping his promises, but is in fact a period of grace, allowing more time for more people to repent (vv. 8-9). His advice is the opposite of that given in the Bud Light commercial. He says that given that Christ will one day certainly return, what sort of people ought we to be?

He encourages sober, holy living, in the light of the return of Christ (vv. 11-14). If the end is nigh, that is not a reason to party, but to get our act together, and be prepared to meet our coming Lord and judge. Instead of scoffing at the delay of his return, be grateful that he is allowing us more chance to get right with him.

The second passage is addressed more to believers than non-believers. But its message is desperately needed, because so many believers are in fact using the doctrine of Christ’s second coming as an excuse to opt out of, instead of into, the battles of the day.

That is, many believers are banking on things getting worse, and then Christ coming back, so let’s just forget all about any social or political obligations we might have. Let’s just pluck a few more souls from the fire, and get our bags packed for the Rapture.

The idea is you don’t polish brass on a sinking ship. You don’t rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. If everything is going down the tubes, then why get involved in trying to make this a better world?

Now this is quite a complex and hotly debate issue. I have partly discussed it elsewhere, so I will not repeat all my arguments here. See for example, http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/1997/10/10/the-case-for-christian-social-involvement/

And Christians with strong biblical convictions can and do fall on different sides of the debate over eschatology. Some can be Pre-Mill and some can be Post-Mill and so on. If you don’t have a clue as to what I am referring to here, don’t worry. This just has to do with how we understand the millennium of Rev. 20 and other eschatological and theological issues.

But that big debate is really not what I am interested in here. And I do need to get back to my second passage. It is the Parable of the Ten Talents (Minas) as found in Luke 19:11-26. The relevant bit is the opening three verses:

“While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: ‘A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas, “Put this money to work,” he said, “until I come back”’.”

The KJV renders the last bit, “Occupy till I come”. The point of the parable is to use the gifts God has given us, and be faithful in our stewardship until the king (Christ) returns. As you will recall, the servants who used the money well and put it to good use were commended by their master. But the servant who hid his talents, burying them in the ground, was strongly rebuked.

Part of the message here is that God expects us to wisely use the gofts, talents and callings he has given us, and to use them right up until he returns. There is no thought here of packing our bags, putting up our feet, and waiting for Christ to return. We are to be busy with the work of the Kingdom. We are to be fully engaged in occupying till he comes.

Thus both these passages give us quite different instructions than does the Bud Light ad. Knowledge that this world is soon coming to an end is not to be an excuse for moral laxity and going on a bender with wild parties. Nor is it an excuse to sit back and do nothing.

The Lord’s return is meant to spur us on to both moral living as well as to dedicated activity for the kingdom. Peter wants to impress on us the need for holy living and serious discipleship as we await the Lord’s return. And Jesus reminds us that there is a lot of work to be done before he returns. We need to roll up our sleeves and get busy with the work God has assigned for us to do.

So while the Bud Light ad may have been quite funny (as have been so many of the other expensive Super Bowl ads), it is clearly amiss in terms of the message it is sending. It fits well into a hedonistic, secular and cynical culture. But it does not at all fit in with the real world, and the biblical worldview.

Disgusting.

These “blasphemy” laws are used to control and terrify non-Muslims and spurious accusations have even been used as excuses for violence and to settle disputes over land and money.

Thank the Lord (literally) that there is so much opposition to the “defamation of religions” U.N. resolution proposal by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which would usher in a “global blasphemy law” and would only benefit Islam of course.

Jihad Watch:-

I don’t think this will be well received in general. I understand the argument relating to the freedom of religious expression, but where do you draw the line?

Nadia Eweida is back in court against British Airways in the dispute over BA asking her to stop wearing a necklace cross at work. Originally an appeal tribunal found that no religious discrimination had been committed, because “Christians generally” do not consider wearing a cross as a religious “requirement”. I believe this is the crux of the issue for Sir Mota Singh QC, as he would argue that wearing the Kirpan is a religious “requirement” and to deny this ‘right’ is tantamount to religious discrimination.

What happens if I believe that carrying a sword is a religious requirement for me personally, or if the Jedi Church decide that wielding a Lightsaber is a ‘religious requirement’? We’d all be in trouble then

Telegraph:-

Sir Mota Singh QC spoke out after a number of Sikhs were refused entry to schools and other venues because they were wearing the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list, said he had worn his Kirpan without problems for up to 40 years, in public buildings including Buckingham Palace.

“Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right,” Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

The sheathed scimitar, which is attached to a cloth belt and normally worn discreetly under clothes, is one of five “articles of faith” that baptised Sikhs must be carried at all times. The others are Kara (a steel bangle), Kesh (unshorn hair), Kanga (a comb) and Kacha (special underwear).

Last year, a 14-year-old Sikh boy was refused entry to the Compton School in Barnet after governors ruled his Kirpan was a health and safety risk.

The same year, a Sikh police officer won his case for discrimination against Greater Manchester Police after he was told to remove his turban during riot training.

And in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against Aberdare Girls’ School in south Wales after it excluded her for breaking its “no jewellery” rule for wearing a Kara. The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Read More

BBC

Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers – known as Kirpans – to school and other public places, Britain’s first Asian judge has said.

There have been a number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota Singh QC has now criticised schools, in particular, over the issue.

“Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right,” Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

‘No objection’

Last year, a Sikh police officer, who had been told to remove his turban during riot training, won a discrimination case against Greater Manchester Police.

A schoolboy was also banned from wearing his Kirpan at a school in Barnet, London.

And, in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against her school after it excluded her for breaking its “no jewellery” rule for wearing a Kara (steel bangle), which is another symbol of Sikh faith.

The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

“I see no objection to a young Sikh girl or boy, who’s been baptised, being allowed to wear their Kirpan if that’s what they want to do,” said Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list.

Read More

This is a moving and sad blog post from Carla over at ‘More Books and Things‘, looking at Christian blogging and the battle against false teaching within Christendom, which I liken to ‘swimming in the sewer’. I’ve only just discovered this blog via Vee over at the Living Journey blog, but will ensure that I follow this from now on.

[.....]

No, we post-modern Christians would rather read a book to learn about who God is than sludge through the Bible. Isn’t that right? Just take a look at your local Christian book store and wander over to that best seller section. See that fiction book up there? Yes, that book. Do you know its author just got an award for his book, even though he openly denied the penal sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross in a recent interview (transcript is here)? Doesn’t that make this nice, popular author (who is speaking in churches across the land spreading his nice fabricated false fable) a false teacher?

So how do we combat today’s false prophets and authors and speakers (who the Bible calls ministers of Satan)? Every Christian should be able to spot them and point them out and avoid them, but they can’t because they are not spending time in God’s Word (I mean studying, not doing a Lectio Divina). And so this is why some unworthy sinners saved by grace are called upon by God to warn His people today, because He is merciful and just. Even so, God said that the people who love listening to the false prophets will not listen to God’s truth, even when He sends it to them.

So why would any person in their right mind spend three hours of their much needed beauty sleep posting a well researched article with a dozen live links, all previously searched out during long hours of burning the midnight oil, to warn Christians about false teaching when maybe 30 of them will skim through it and nod their heads in agreement, 30 might quickly browse the headline and decide it’s not bad enough news to bother reading, another 30 will politely disagree, yawn and move on to a more interesting website, and 9 more may read it, shake their head in disgust, and leave a very nasty comment? Here is why – we who blog these things blog for the few; the remnant, for that one person to whom God is speaking, who may read the truth, be convicted, will not harden their heart, and will have the guts to come out of the popular deception.

Read More

From Zenit – H/T Anglican Mainstream:-

Benedict XVI has been under fire this past week for supposedly condemning equality legislation in the United Kingdom that seeks to protect gays and women in the workplace. His comments, however, were misunderstood, says a Vatican spokesman.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press service, noted in the most recent installment of the Vatican Television program “Octava Dies” that “assuring equal opportunity to all members of society is a noble objective.”

“Nevertheless,” he added, “in certain cases one tries to achieve it with laws that impose unjust limits on the freedom of religious communities to act according to their own convictions.”

“If then these laws contradict the natural law, one undermines the foundation that guarantees equality and therefore the right to enjoy equal opportunity,” the priest explained.

Last Monday, the Holy Father addressed the bishops of England and Wales on the occasion of their five-yearly “ad limina” visit to Rome. In his address he noted: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

“Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

“In some respects, it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

The Pope’s words, according to Father Lombardi, “touch on a critical point in the debates over equality and rights that are much in focus in many countries of the world; debates that involve fundamental aspects of the understanding of man: right to life, sexuality, the family.”

“It is not at all a matter of the Church’s interference in the social and political arena,” he said, “but of a right and proper — and thus courageous — manifestation of her positions at the service of the common good.”

Father Lombardi then cited Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, who cautioned against an ideological use of the theme of equality of rights in the U.K. daily The Times.

He wrote: “Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.”

“So it is not only the Catholics who see a problem,” the Vatican spokesman concluded, “it is a problem for everyone to honestly confront if they truly want to build a better society together.”

Bill Muehlenberg has also written about the so called equality legislation in a piece entitled: “Heterosexuality: A New Hate Crime”

It is not just in the futurist, dystopian novels such as Brave New World and 1984 that the totalist state seeks to punish thoughts as well as actions. In real world dictatorships and totalitarian states the same attempt has been made. Certain thoughts and ideas are declared to be verboten with corresponding punishments for those daring to think them.

The tyrannical state determines what is acceptable thought, and woe to those who wish to remain a free thinker. Any recalcitrants are swiftly dealt with, and the full weight of the state apparatus is brought to bear on any offenders. Correct Speak and Correct Think are maintained by various measures, including re-education camps.

The really scary thing is that the free West is not all that far away from what we find in these novels and these police states. Increasingly Western nations are passing their own totalitarian ‘hate speech’ laws, vilification legislation, and so-called equal opportunity bills.

All these laws may seem like they were enacted with good intentions, and perhaps some were. But the outcome remains the same: a radical diminution of freedom of speech, increased powers of the State, and encroaching government-enforced Correct Think

The number one expression of this in the West concerns the radical homosexual agenda. All over the West coercive legislation is being passed by activist governments to enforce the homosexual agenda. And there is good reason for this: the majority of the population simply do not accept the normalisation of homosexuality, nor see things like same-sex marriage as being in any way on a par with heterosexual marriage.

Therefore the only way complete submission on this matter can be achieved is by the heavy hand of the law and the threat of punishment for those who do not comply. The majority will simply be forced by increasingly hostile states to kowtow to the homosexual agenda or face the music.

Consider just two more examples of this, both of which appeared recently in the media. Add these two to the many dozens of other cases, and things are not looking very good for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

The two examples should not come as a surprise, given where they originated. Canada and the UK have been world leaders in pushing a politically correct, pro-homosexual agenda, complete with government sanction. The first case has to do with a government proposal in Quebec to stamp out politically incorrect thinking on the issue of homosexuality.

It comes in the form of the “Quebec Policy Against Homophobia” released by Quebec’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Kathleen Weil. Journalist Drew Zahn explains. The policy is aimed at “eliminating all forms of ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ – including the belief that homosexuality is immoral – from society as a whole.

“The text and specifics of the policy are steeped in vague bureaucratic language about ‘coordination’ and ‘synergy,’ but the goal is spelled out clearly: to enlist the government to normalize homosexuality in society and to quell common criticisms levied against ‘sexual minorities,’ a term the policy uses to inclusively describe ‘lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgenders.’

“‘An inclusive society such as ours must take the necessary steps to combat homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns and move towards full acceptance of sexual diversity,’ states the Premier of Quebec Jean Charest in a letter that serves as the policy’s introduction. ‘The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society.’ The policy further defines the heterosexism that must be stomped out as ‘affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation.’

“Furthermore, the policy laments, ‘It is still possible to hear people say that homosexuality is an illness, morally wrong or a form of deviant behavior, and that people choose their sexual orientation. These beliefs, often instilled in the past, tend to marginalize sexual minority groups and prevent full recognition of their social equality.’ Such ‘prejudice,’ the policy affirms, must be combated.”

Wow! Even if only a fraction of this is true, this is scary as all get out. This matches anything envisaged by Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and other fiction writers warning of future totalistic regimes. This is mind moulding at its worst.

Imagine that! Anyone who even affirms that homosexuality is in anyway other than absolutory hunky dory must be punished and re-educated. This is Big Brother at its worst. And get this: even to suggest that homosexuality is a choice will bring on the wrath of the state thought police. But what about the many homosexuals themselves who have suggested that choice plays an important role in their lifestyle? Will they be punished as well?

But wait, there’s more. In the UK an MP has actually said that his party would ensure that faith-based schools would be forced to comply with PC views on homosexuality. This is how one article describes this:

“UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg says his party (the third largest in the UK) would legislate to legally oblige faith schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and without risk to health. In a magazine interview, Clegg outlined proposals to advance ‘gay rights’, including forcing all schools to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and to teach that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless.’ He also proposed to end the ban on homosexual men being allowed to give blood, and to allow same-sex couples to marry with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.”

There you go: more coercive social utopianism. If the masses will not bend the knee to the extreme secular-left vision, then the totalist state will simply force all those unwilling scum to embrace the homosexual agenda. Using the force of the law to impose unpopular and draconian social engineering policies is always the stuff of ruthless dictatorships – it is never the stuff of genuinely free democracies.

But our coercive utopians really don’t give a rip about freedom, democracy and other hallmarks of civilised society. They are only interested in implementing their radical social engineering – at any cost. All opposition will swiftly and stiffly be dealt with.

Today the affirmation of heterosexuality is seen by many social engineers to be a hate crime. One can only speculate as to just how long it will be before heterosexuality itself becomes a punishable offence. Don’t laugh – who just a few short decades ago would ever have dreamed that to champion heterosexuality and criticise homosexuality would become a criminal offence?

The Western world is well on the way to complete self-immolation. The only thing that stands in the way of Big Brother dictatorship is an informed and concerned citizenry. And as Edmund Bourke so rightly warned, the only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122113
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011307.html

Ruth Gledhill reports in the Times:

The chaos of the Church of England’s move towards consecrating women bishops is revealed in the statement the Bishop of Manchester will make to the General Synod tomorrow. Articles of Faith has obtained a copy of this statement. In it he says:

‘…proposals for a recognised society, some sort of transfer or vesting, or for adopting the simplest possible legislative approach all got initial amber lights, that is to say, we agreed to consider them further.. We then did some serious work on these models, particularly to tease out the pros and cons of the society model and to understand exactly what it might mean in terms of who exercised what jurisdiction and on whose authority…. The Revision Committee voted by a clear majority to reject the society option but, by a similarly clear majority to go for the transfer or vesting route….

Continue Reading

Revd. Fr. Edward Tomlinson has commented on this and of course makes reference to the Pope’s offer to Anglicans:-

Breaking news from the Revision committee of the General Synod has appeared on Ruth Gledhill’s blog. Just as predicted it spells a complete betrayal of those Anglo-Catholics who cannot in all conscience accept the ordination of women. Far from honouring the sincere promises made to us in 1992 the recommendation effectively ushers in the end game for the Catholic movement within the Church of England.

[.....]

For those who had already decided that the Pope’s offer cannot be ignored this is a wonderful day. It makes it abundantly clear that there is no long term future for traditional Catholicism in the Church of England and ensures no one can point a finger of blame when congregations walk away. But for those who feel unable to convert to Catholicism this is a very grave and tragic development. How wicked that the Church of England is unable to offer this group any space in which to thrive. The Revision Committee are ensuring they have no future which renders evangelism dormant. Such priests are forced into a life as one generational hospice chaplains….

Continue Reading

On the subject of the Pope’s offer to Anglicans, Fr Tomlinson writes:-

It is no surprise or secret that feelings are running high on both sides of the Tiber with regard to the Pope’s offer of an Ordinariate for those Anglicans seeking to enter fully into the life and witness of the Roman Catholic Church. However those feelings are markedly different depending on what shore you stand. This week Pope Benedict met with the RC Bishops of England and Scotland and his words were full of welcome, encouragement and hope. This is what he said:

Ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue assume great importance in England and Wales, given the varied demographic profile of the population. As well as encouraging you in your important work in these areas, I would ask you to be generous in implementing the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, so as to assist those groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. I am convinced that, if given a warm and open-hearted welcome, such groups will be a blessing for the entire Church.

With these thoughts, I commend your apostolic ministry to the intercession of Saint David, Saint George and all the saints and martyrs of England and Wales. May Our Lady of Walsingham guide and protect you always. To all of you, and to the priests, religious and lay faithful of your country, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of peace and joy in the Lord Jesus Christ.

How clear that the Pope sees this development in a positive light. His words are full of graciousness and welcome and he seems to be implying that we Anglicans with truly Catholic hearts have something to offer the RC church as well as something to receive. Now contrast that with the very dismissive manner in which the Archbishop of York pours cold water on the whole affair in a recent interview:

“If people genuinely realise that they want to be Roman Catholic, they should convert properly, and go through catechesis and be made proper Catholics. This kind of creation [the Apostolic Constitution] — well, all I can say is, we wish them every blessing and may the Lord encourage them. But as far as I am concerned, if I was really, genuinely wanting to convert, I wouldn’t go into an Ordinariate. I would actually go into catechesis and become a truly converted Roman Catholic and be accepted.”

William Crawley: “So those Anglicans who take advantage of the Apostolic Constitution, you’re saying, would not be ‘proper Catholics’?”

Archbishop Sentamu: “Well, I mean, I’d be very surprised –”

William Crawley: “What would they be if they are not ‘proper Catholics’?”

Archbishop Sentamu: “They would be what they are: an Ordinariate of the Vatican.”

These words stand in stark contrast to the holy Father’s and I am left wondering what information ++Sentemu has that the Pope does not? With what authority does he proclaim the ordinariate to be ‘not proper’ when the Pope so clearly expresses a desire to give it full life? At best he is troubled and misinformed, at worst he is deliberately trying to worry those considering the offer on both sides of the divide.

Perhaps the heirarchy of the Church of England should pause before speaking and consider how ungracious it appears when they both refuse the space for Catholics to thrive whilst also trying to deny us life elsewhere! As General Synod meets this week it would be wise to ponder the situation carefully. Either decide to embrace orthodox Catholic theology and match the Pope’s offer or else embrace the generosity of the Vatican and seek to help those you no longer value to find life with integrity elsewhere. But be warned, after years of pain and frustration there will be those who no longer care by what tortous means the Synod intends to progress or to stifle now that Saint Peter is calling them home.

H/T Polycarp

Fox

Two men ministering on the streets of Boynton Beach were allegedly gunned down by an 18-year-old man.

Police say 24-year-old Tite Sufra and 23-year-old Stephen Ocean were preaching to Jeriah Woody for about 15 minutes, until he got a phone call.

Woody left, but then allegedly started walking toward the two. When Sufra approached, Woody allegedly shot him in the head. Ocean ran, and police say Woody shot him in the back, then walked up and shot him again — this time in the head at point-blank range.

This is lovely from CyberBrethren:-

On the second last Sunday before the start of Lent, Sexagesima, the focus is on God’s work through His Word. The Sower sows the seed of His Word (Luke 8:4–15). This Word is living and powerful (Heb. 4:9–13) to conceive new life in those who hear it. But the planting of Christ is attacked by the devil, the world, and the flesh. Satan snatches the Word away from hard hearts. The riches and pleasures of this life choke off faith. Shallow and emotional belief withers in time of temptation and trouble. But see how Christ bears this attack for us! Christ’s cross was planted in the hard and rocky soil of Golgotha. A crown of thorns was placed upon His head. Satan and His demons hellishly hounded and devoured Him. Yet, through His dying and rising again, He destroyed these enemies of ours. Jesus is Himself the Seed which fell to the ground and died in order that it might sprout forth to new life and produce much grain. In Him, the weak are strong (2 Cor. 11:19–12:9). He is the Word of the Father which does not return void (Is. 55:10–13) but yields a harvest hundredfold. Lesson summary source.

Continue Reading

Whilst glancing quickly at news feeds in the middle of moving house, I noted this rather odd news relating to a Rockefeller raising capital for a proposed 3rd Temple in Jerusalem.

I posted last year an article from ‘Israel Today’ that spoke of a a centuries-old rabbinical prophecy, that Israel will begin construction of the Third Temple in Jerusalem on March 16, 2010.

Vee over at Living Journey has put together an excellent post (as usual) relating to this recent “Temple Talk”, which is well worth a read:-

The Third Temple – Temple Talk…

The BBC nailed its colours to the mast when it appointed a Muslim head of religion (Aaqil Ahmed) last year and caused much disquiet in some quarters of the Christian world. This move was perceived by some Christians to be a ‘slap in the face’ and to be frank it was never going to be an easy road.

Aaqil Ahmed moved from Channel 4, where he caused some controversy as their ‘head of religion’ and was accused of a pro-Islamic bias.

Interestingly it was only last November that Aaqil Ahmed stated that, “Christianity is still the BBC schedule’s cornerstone”. How things can change in such a short period of time.

Telegraph:-

Aaqil Ahmed, a controversial executive whose appointment last year prompted more than 100 complaints, said: “I think all the faiths should be treated in the same way. I don’t believe in treating any faith differently.”

[....]

Mr Ahmed’s comment that Christianity should not receive preferential treatment comes despite nearly three-quarters of the population describing themselves as Christian in the last census.

Read More

Now we all know that the census is rubbish and the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the UK population are not Christian and that Christians are now a tiny minority group in this country.

Aaqil Ahmed’s comments relating to the Church of England ‘living in the past’ are accurate and I find it extraordinary that there will be a debate at the General Synod, the Church’s parliament, over the BBC’s treatment of Christianity. The Church of England is lamenting a loss of a privileged status in the UK more than anything else and is still trying to come to terms with this reality.

The BBC has to cater for a plethora of diversity and sadly Christianity is just one very small part of that diversity in the UK today.

The Biased BBC blog has quite a scathing comment on all of this and they do bring up a salient point, relating to the fact that no matter what direction the BBC take, we are still legally obliged to fund it and this is the real issue.

As for me, I rather enjoyed ‘A History of Christianity’, which was presented by the Oxford historian Diarmuid McCulloch and was commissioned by Aaqil Ahmed.

UPDATE

L Grove – Aaqil Ahmed did not commission BBC FOUR’s A History of Christianity. The series was already in post production when Mr Ahmed was appointed Head of Religion & Ethics at the BBC. A History of Christianity was commissioned by Adam Kemp the BBC’s commissioning editor for Arts, Religion and Music in 2008.

Cranmer has now commented on this and also Jihad Watch, amongst others.