Veteran preacher’s freedoms curtailed - at Speakers’ Corner!

Episodes in the battle for truth.

Royal address reveals what the nation has lost in 75 years.

As the nation pauses this week to mark 75 years since the Normandy landings, remembering the enormous sacrifice and great courage of so many thousands in order to secure the freedom of so many more, it is fitting to revisit the address made to the nation on 6 June 1944 by Britain’s monarch, King George VI.

His speech, from which both the Queen and Prince William quoted during their addresses this week, did not shy from acknowledging the help and providence of God, and the importance of humble, nation-wide prayer. It illuminates something of the faith that suffused Britain at that time, and reveals something of what we have lost in the years since.

King George VI’s address to the nation

6 June, 1944

“Four years ago, our Nation and Empire stood alone against an overwhelming enemy, with our backs to the wall. Tested as never before in our history, in God's providence we survived that test; the spirit of the people, resolute, dedicated, burned like a bright flame, lit surely from those unseen fires which nothing can quench.

Now once more a supreme test has to be faced. This time, the challenge is not to fight to survive but to fight to win the final victory for the good cause. Once again what is demanded from us all is something more than courage and endurance; we need a revival of spirit, a new unconquerable resolve. After nearly five years of toil and suffering, we must renew that crusading impulse on which we entered the war and met its darkest hour. We and our Allies are sure that our fight is against evil and for a world in which goodness and honour may be the foundation of the life of men in every land.

That we may be worthily matched with this new summons of destiny, I desire solemnly to call my people to prayer and dedication. We are not unmindful of our own shortcomings, past and present. We shall ask not that God may do our will, but that we may be enabled to do the will of God: and we dare to believe that God has used our Nation and Empire as an instrument for fulfilling his high purpose.

I hope that throughout the present crisis of the liberation of Europe there may be offered up earnest, continuous and widespread prayer. We who remain in this land can most effectively enter into the sufferings of subjugated Europe by prayer, whereby we can fortify the determination of our sailors, soldiers and airmen who go forth to set the captives free.

The Queen joins with me in sending you this message. She well understands the anxieties and cares of our womenfolk at this time and she knows that many of them will find, as she does herself, fresh strength and comfort in such waiting upon God. She feels that many women will be glad in this way to keep vigil with their menfolk as they man the ships, storm the beaches and fill the skies.

At this historic moment surely not one of us is too busy, too young or too old to play a part in a nationwide, perchance a worldwide, vigil of prayer as the great crusade sets forth. If from every place of worship, from home and factory, from men and women of all ages and many races and occupations, our intercessions rise, then, please God, both now and in a future not remote, the predictions of an ancient Psalm may be fulfilled: "The Lord will give strength unto his people: the Lord will give his people the blessing of peace."”

Bible-believers chased out of Britain for not keeping to the script

It is perhaps ironic that, on the approach to the 400^th anniversary of the Mayflower’s sailing in 1620,¹ the British nation is plunged into the same sort of fractious, volatile scenario that led to that great exodus of the faithful.

When, following the Elizabethan era, James I ascended the throne in 1603, he introduced a policy enforcing religious conformity which almost blew up in his face.

First, there was the unsuccessful ‘gunpowder plot’ through which Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators registered Catholic opposition to the new king with their attempt to reduce Parliament to rubble.

Then the Puritans and Separatists came in for the monarch’s ire. At a time of significant political and religious tension, he tried to steady the ship by ensuring that all his people followed the same pseudo-Protestant script.

Harrying Out the Faithful

As with the Catholics, he also saw the Puritans as potential enemies, warning that he would “harry them out of the land”.

And indeed his dire threat duly succeeded in driving out the so-called ‘Pilgrim Fathers’, who had inaugurated the Separatist Church on the borders of Yorkshire and north Nottinghamshire.

Like other Puritans, they were devout Christians who believed the Church needed purifying from ritualistic dross. But whereas the Puritans sought change from within, the Pilgrim Fathers were convinced such endeavour was a lost cause and that they needed to “come out from among them” (Isa 52:11).

But some were fined, others were imprisoned and the pressure of persecution eventually led, in 1608, to their escape to a more tolerant Holland.

In the 17^th Century, devout Christians were imprisoned, persecuted and driven out of the country.

James I, whose policy of religious conformity made life difficult for Puritans like the Pilgrim Fathers.Seeking Freedom

It was a further dozen years before they sailed for the New World in the Mayflower, the king having changed his mind and given them permission to establish a colony there.

And so these Christians laid the foundations of what was to become the greatest nation on earth, built firmly on the principles of the Bible that had been challenged back in England.

These courageous pioneers were thus used to loose us from the chains of slavery to religious conformity which saw communities forced to attend the state-recognised Church where ritual and dead orthodoxy reigned, and where the Bible was chained to the pulpit.

Those who sought to experience the vitality of New Testament Christianity with its emphasis on freedom of the Spirit and a personal relationship with God were deemed outcasts.

Back to the ‘Dark Ages’?

It seems we have come full circle. Faced with the ever-present threat of terrorism, along with aggressive lobbying of secular humanists, we are now urged to follow the politically correct script - or else.

The Bible has been jettisoned in favour of what is effectively cultural Marxism, commanding what is and is not permissible to say and do.

Politicians condemn Brunei for proposing draconian new laws on corporal and capital punishment, seen as a return to the ‘Dark Ages’. But we are hardly squeaky clean ourselves in the way we have driven a coach and horses through the Ten Commandments, seriously undermined marriage (which is designed to create safe boundaries for the protection of family life and society in general) and by proposing state-sponsored child abuse through the indoctrination of children as young as four with the idea that they can choose their gender.

I suppose, in a way, this is the natural outcome of the state-sanctioned massacre of nine million unborn babies over the past 50 years.

Today, we are all urged to follow the politically correct script – or else.

The Blame Game

When will we acknowledge our own guilt? When will we stop pointing a finger at other people’s sins and take the ‘plank’ out of our own eye?

Under the proposed ‘no-fault’ divorce law, adultery will no longer be regarded as a sin – not even legally. It is supremely ironic that in a culture in which we are encouraged to blame everyone else for our troubles at a cost of millions, we are about to be exonerated in a key area of life on which almost everything else depends – that is, marriage and the family.

It means that no-one will officially be to blame for break-ups which will have caused untold heartbreak in countless homes. If we are no longer to be held responsible for solemn vows we have made in front of witnesses, what hope do we have of carrying out honest business in the wider world, or of being trusted by others?

What sort of spineless adults will emerge from witnessing their parents split at the drop of a hat? Throwing your toys out of the pram is surely an indulgence reserved for babies who are subsequently disciplined to consider the wider effects of their tantrums.

Shirking Responsibility

New housing estates cannot be built fast enough to keep up with the ever-increasing number of people who no longer know how to live with one another. It’s surely time we encouraged people to take responsibility for their actions.

Instead of honouring role models of commitment to family life, we fawn over celebrities and sportsmen who become the heroes we worship even though, as in some recent high-profile cases, they have set a shocking example of leadership in the home.

On the other hand, rugby stars soon get knocked off their pedestals when they express Christian beliefs on the subject, as did multiple Wimbledon champion Margaret Court.

It’s surely time we encouraged people to take responsibility for their actions rather than resorting to the default position of blaming someone else.

The Way of Escape

The fact is, there is always someone to blame – not just for break-ups, but for the mess we get ourselves in every day, including the Brexit botch-up. That is why Jesus came – to set us free from the burden of brokenness, guilt and regret, and give us new hope, especially with broken relationships.

As we celebrate Easter, we remember that Jesus became our Passover Lamb who frees us from sin through his blood shed on the Cross, prefigured in Egypt 1,500 years earlier by the freedom from slavery of the Jews who marked their doorposts with the blood of a sacrificial lamb.

What Jesus has done for us can be likened to the action of a First World War chaplain who, when asked for prayer by an officer who was about to embark on a dangerous mission into ‘no man’s land’, said he would do more than that – he would go with him. And when a shell exploded near the two men, the chaplain threw himself on the officer and died in his place.²

Offer of Peace

Do not follow the politically correct script. When ancient Israel disobeyed the Lord’s commands, the Prophet Isaiah warned them that “there is no peace for the wicked” (Isa 48:22). But there is peace - and forgiveness, and life - with Jesus!

References

1 Find out more on the Mayflower 400 website.

2 CWR’s Every Day with Jesus, 15 April 2019.

Trump vs Macron and the battle for all our futures.

These days, I am routinely and necessarily suspicious of the BBC. So when Auntie reports a major international speech given by the most powerful man in the world by poking fun at him, it makes me want to listen to the speech in full and see what I’ve missed!

The speech was given by President Donald Trump to the annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York. The UNGA brings together in one room world leaders of vastly different political backgrounds, from 153 nations. Since a lot of politicking is done off-camera, the podium is the tip of the iceberg; a nonetheless vital indicator of a more extensive reality just below the surface.

Podium Wars

It is fascinating to watch Trump’s speeches and the reactions of other world leaders. Ever since his arrival on the world scene, things seem to have become more threatening and unstable – or more exciting and hopeful, depending on your perspective. He has certainly succeeded in exposing to the air an ideological war that has been raging in the West for decades.

As with ‘populist’ movements like Brexit, such an open challenge to the left-wing secular humanist orthodoxy is usually decried (by left-wing secular humanists) as divisive. But what else should be expected of any attempt to stand against the prevailing direction of Western politics?

And if Trump embodies one side of the ideological war, the other is embodied by French President Emmanuel Macron, whose UNGA speech was essentially a point-for-point rebuttal of Trump’s. This article looks at some of the key issues over which they tussle, putting them both into biblical perspective.

Polar Opposite Views

President Trump dedicated much of his speech to a solidly conservative defence of nationhood, vowing to “never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy” and to reject “the ideology of globalism.”

His argument was that whilst supra-national organisations like the UN have “unlimited potential”, they cannot and should not replace the “beautiful constellation of nations”, since “Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered.”

If Trump embodies one side of the ideological war for the West, the other is embodied by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Meanwhile, President Macron took the podium to exalt the virtues of global government as the only way to solve mounting international crises and ensure prosperity for all. He argued that “nationalism always leads to defeat”, blaming it for two world wars, genocides and countless worsening global emergencies.

He then claimed that we are witnessing a “crisis of the Westphalian world order" (i.e. a world of individual sovereign states) and “this is a turning point” where we need “a new world order” based on “new rules” and “a re-forging of the global collective system”.

Trump addresses the 73rd session of the Assembly, 25 September 2018.While Macron waxed lyrical about international co-operation, Trump criticised the dangerous lack of accountability of global institutions (e.g. the ICC, the WTO). Declaring that they have “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy and no authority”, he then proclaimed:

America is governed by Americans…we believe in the majesty of freedom and the dignity of the individual. We believe in self-government and the rule of law. And we prize the culture that sustains our liberty - a culture built on strong families, deep faith, and fierce independence.

Macron denounced this thinking as ‘isolationism’. He argued that populist movements championing democracy are mere expressions of frustration from groups ‘left behind’ by the modern world. To combat this, he argued, what is needed is not insular nationalism, but more and better globalism.

These are just a few examples; I recommend comparing the full texts of both speeches (links below).

More Than Different Opinions

Importantly, Trump and Macron do not simply represent different opinions about how government should be done: they embody two diametrically opposed worldviews.

Underlying Trump’s defence of national sovereignty is a biblical valuation of individual dignity and freedom, as given by God. From this starting point, the role of government is to protect and encourage individuals, not least by investing in the structures (also God-given) that enable them to flourish, such as the family, the rule of law and the nation itself.

Underneath Macron’s ‘new world order’ is precisely the opposite: a firm belief in the pre-eminence of the universal rather than the individual. The role of government is then to impose freedom from the top down, not by protecting units like the family and the nation, but by subordinating them to a ‘universal’ moral and political system:

I believe in universal values…I think there should be unconditional protection of our values…Let us address the crises, let us work together…mindful of the principles guided by our history and the principle of universality and universalism.

Under Trump’s defence of national sovereignty is a biblical valuation of individual dignity and freedom, as given by God. Underneath Macron’s ‘new world order’ is precisely the opposite.

Digging even further down, underneath these different claims lie very different visions for humanity’s future, and very different beliefs about human nature and God.

Macron’s vision is the realisation of a world where poverty, disease and conflict are gone, climate change is reversed and prosperity is enjoyed by all. Appealing though all this sounds, it is grounded in a utopian fantasy: the creation of heaven on earth, without God, humanity dictating its own morals and working out its own salvation.¹ Both history and Bible prophecy testify to the terrible ends of such millennial dreams.

Trump’s world-view is not nearly so grandiose. He does not assume that a universal utopian vision is necessary, possible or desirable, but instead concerns himself with unleashing individual potential: enabling people to make the best of a fallen world, responsible for their own lives before God.

This does not preclude impulses to international co-operation; it just does not prescribe them as the way to humanity’s ultimate self-realisation.

The Spiritual Dimension

These two men and their two speeches remind me that ultimately there are really only two worldviews, or two directions in which to move: to pay respect to the God of the Bible and his created order, or to write God out of the picture, revising the world accordingly.² Whichever side wins out will change the lives of millions, even billions of people.

The biblical context of all this, of course, is the spiritual battle spoken of in Ephesians 6:10-19. This invisible battle is for the hearts, minds and eternal destinations of all mankind. It is therefore fundamentally a battle for the freedom of the Gospel to be proclaimed, heard and accepted. Satan’s strategy is to deceive with counterfeit offers of salvation and freedom, working meanwhile to close down opportunities for the truth to be heard.

One day, Macron’s vision of a ‘new world order’ will be realised, temporarily (Rev 13), though Satan’s attempts to achieve this through history have so far been allayed. By God’s grace, until the appointed time the Holy Spirit is acting as a restraint, safe-guarding our freedom to proclaim the Good News:

For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendour of his coming. (2 Thess 2:7; also 2 Pet 3:9)

In these two men, and in these two speeches, we are reminded that ultimately there really are only two worldviews.

For Believers

Why is it important to understand the battle raging between our political masters, especially if God ultimately scoffs at their posturing and plotting (Ps 2)? It’s important because it should jolt us out of complacency and galvanise us:

• To make bold use of our Gospel freedoms while we still have them,
  
• To take care that we are not deceived into aligning ourselves with ideologies behind which lie the ‘powers of this world’s darkness’,
  
• To be deliberate in applying God’s truth to our political thinking and acting, and
  
• To pray with understanding, listening to the heart of God and (if so called) yielding ourselves to the vital ministry of intercession.
  

It is a mistake to poke fun at Trump instead of listening to what he has to say. This is a debate – nay, a war – about human nature and purpose, and ultimately about God. Ephesians 6 makes no provision for Christians sitting on the side-lines: it is a call to arms.

Listen to/read the full speeches:

• President Trump: text / video

• President Macron: text / video (quotes taken from the latter)

Notes

1 In this schema, the major evil is not sin, but the freedom which has allowed inequalities to flourish and resources to be abused. The only solution, therefore, is the submission of freedom to the ‘greater’ goals of equality and unity. The biggest potential threats to this are sovereign nation-states or movements of people that might use their independence to deviate from this agenda.

2 Nowhere do these worldviews clash more voraciously than on Israel, although I have not included this example here. Israel will always be at the crux of the global battle for truth and freedom, because she stands for the inevitable fulfilment of God’s covenant purposes and the soon return of Messiah.

A world shaken by earthquakes and violence can soon expect the Prince of Peace

As the Western world wobbles, rumblings of earthquakes are sending out worrying signals in Israel. The two are connected, I believe.

A quick succession of quakes have rocked parts of Galilee, significantly the region where Jesus lived and conducted much of his earth-shaking ministry which changed the world forever.

He warned that his coming again would be preceded by a number of signs including strange weather patterns – and particularly an increase in earthquakes comparable to the onset of birth pains on a pregnant woman (Matt 24:7f). As they become more frequent and severe, we will know his coming is near.

It so happens that a very big one is due in Israel, according to geologists. When a 6.5 magnitude quake struck Galilee in 1837, it killed up to 7,000 people.¹

The Prophet Zechariah actually predicts that a devastating quake will accompany the return of the Messiah to Jerusalem. So we could be witnessing the closing stages of the present age. Are we ready to face the Judge of all mankind? Are we presiding over righteous laws?

The Bible Criminalised

Here in Britain, freedoms won at great cost are being jettisoned in favour of a new intolerance of those who hold the biblical views on which the country’s great institutions were founded.

You couldn’t make it up, but a man was arrested for reading the Bible outside St Paul’s Cathedral (apparently at the instigation of staff there)² where, nearly 500 years ago, the Bishop of London burnt copies of the Bible in protest at the effrontery of William Tyndale in daring to translate God’s word into a language we could all understand (i.e. not Latin). Tyndale was later burnt at the stake, with St Paul’s staff again implicated in this travesty of justice.

We could be witnessing the closing stages of the present age. Are we ready to face the Judge of all mankind?

The man recently arrested was simply reading aloud the King James Bible, virtually the same as the one for which Tyndale was martyred – 80% of the King James New Testament is Tyndale’s work.

It would seem that this incident is related to a case in Bristol early last year concerning the arrest of a street preacher when a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer told magistrates that publicly quoting from the King James Bible “in the context of modern British society must be considered to be abusive and is a criminal matter”.

It is against this background that Christian charity Barnabas Fund is campaigning to ‘Turn the Tide’ against the erosion of religious freedom and calling for a new law to protect it.

Violence and Chaos

Before returning from a visit to the capital earlier this week, I picked up a copy of the London Evening Standard³ and was greeted with the front page headline ‘How do we turn the tide?’ – referring to the latest teenage victim of the violence which has swept the city in recent months.

This is another sign of the end times. For Jesus also said: “Just as it was in the days of Noah [which were marked by violence], so will it be in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17:26).

As the paper launched a special investigation into its causes, they are discovering – surprise, surprise – that its roots lie in what police call ‘adverse child experiences’ (ACEs). In other words, in the home, which is what many of us have been saying for decades.

The home is the breeding ground either for good or for evil, which is why it is so important for legislators to place the welfare of the family above all else. But instead the family is under severe attack from all sides.

But there is hope, according to a recent survey⁴ which found, among other things, that teenagers now enjoy spending more time with family. It certainly seems that they are crying out for meaning and purpose; for something bigger than themselves.

The home is the breeding ground either for good or for evil.

Suicide is another big killer among the young, fuelled in part by the superficial hedonism encouraged by the media which soon enough leaves its victims feeling empty and worthless. Violence is even perpetrated on a massive scale in the so-called interests of ‘health’ – nine million babies have been butchered before birth since the Abortion Act was passed more than 50 years ago. And we call ourselves civilised.

Peace, or War?

In addressing the protest against President Trump’s visit to Britain, Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “I wish to live in a world of peace, not of war.”⁵ Quite apart from the hypocrisy of such a statement from someone who has referred to terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah as ‘friends’ and has failed to effectively deal with anti-Semitism in his own party, it betrays extreme naivety. After all, Mr Trump managed to get the world’s most feared dictator to the negotiating table. Was that not a gesture of peace?

Yes, we all want peace, and it is possible, but only through the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ. Yet there is a paradox here which needs to be understood. Jesus came as the long prophesied Prince of Peace (see Isa 9:6) who would ultimately bring war to an end at his second appearance when people “will beat their swords into ploughshares” (Isa 2:4).

But he also came as one who divides. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt 10:34). This was a warning that choosing him would cause division even among families because he stands as the ultimate test of whether you are for or against God. He is God come in the flesh. Those who are for God choose him; those who are against God reject him, leaving them as enemies of both God and his disciples.

Jesus came as the long prophesied Prince of Peace who will ultimately bring war to an end, but he also came as one who divides.

And yet he has bridged the gap between sinful man and a holy God by taking the punishment for sin we all deserve. God the Father has heaped all our sins on him so that we can enter his presence free of sin, and at peace with both God and man.

In addition, the barrier of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been broken at the cross where Jesus died; that is where you will find true peace among men. It is no fairy-tale; I have seen both Jew and Arab embracing one another in reconciliation through their common love for Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, after discovering what he has done for them at the Cross (see Eph 2:14-18).

True Security

Meanwhile, as Israeli residents – especially in Galilee – watch out for further ground movements with a degree of trepidation, we are reminded of what the Prophet Haggai reports the Lord Almighty as saying: “In a little while I will once more shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations [the Messiah] will come, and I will fill this house with glory” (Hag 2:6f).

The New Testament Letter to the Hebrews reminds its hearers of this word, adding: “The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken – that is, created things – so that what cannot be shaken may remain” (Heb 12:26f).

The world around us is tottering. But are we secure? Are we living in a world which cannot be shaken because of our absolute trust in the Lord?

Notes

1 Jerusalem News Network, 9 July 2018, quoting the Jerusalem Post. 

2 Barnabas Fund, 10 July 2018.

3 17 July 2018.

4 Conducted by British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

5 Daily Mail, 14 July 2018.

The Ashers Bakery case goes to the Supreme Court.

This week, the Supreme Court left its usual place in London and has been sitting in Belfast to hear a case that has fundamental significance for the future of free speech in Britain. The Ashers Bakery case dates back to 2014 when an LGBT activist ordered a cake from the bakery with a message in the icing stating "Support Gay Marriage".

The owners of the bakery, Daniel and Amy MacArthur, who are committed Christians, refused to do this on the ground that it was against their beliefs. The initial judgment found that they were guilty of ‘discrimination’ and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The case has now gone to the Supreme Court, but the Northern Ireland Attorney General, John Larkin QC, has already expressed his own opinion that the Court of Appeal was wrong in their judgment.

The case has attracted an enormous amount of interest because of its significance for our cherished freedom of speech. The central question is whether the law can force someone to make a statement that they do not believe.

The Law vs. Freedom of Speech

Does the law have the power to force a Catholic to make a statement criticising the Pope? Does the law have the power to force a Muslim to make a statement that is insulting to Mohammed? Does the law have the power to force any citizen to make a statement that is directly against his or her personal convictions?

This is a question that, for Christians, goes back 2,000 years to the time of the Roman Emperor Domitian in the year AD 95 when all citizens were required, on a certain day, to go to the local shrine dedicated to the Emperor and say "Caesar is Lord".

The case has attracted an enormous amount of interest because of its significance for our cherished freedom of speech.

Emperor Domitian.The Apostle John was in exile on the island of Patmos when he had a remarkable spiritual experience on the very day, known as ‘Lord's day’ (Rev 1:10), when he knew that many of his Christian friends would be signing their own death warrants by refusing to make a statement which would deny the Lordship of Jesus.

For the MacArthurs, being forced to make a statement declaring support for homosexual marriage, which the Bible declares to be "detestable” to God (Lev 18:22) would be equivalent to denying their faith in the God of Creation and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It would be the modern equivalent of saying "Caesar is Lord" and denying the Lordship of Jesus.

Significance for Equality Law

But there are significant legal aspects as well as moral aspects to this case, which is no doubt the reason why the five judges are not expected to announce their decision before the autumn and it may even be delayed to the beginning of next year. Their judgment has profound significance for the future of the Equality Commission and the interpretation of equality law in Britain.

This case is creating panic, not only among LGBTQ+ supporters but across the whole left-wing postmodernist philosophical camp, which has been driving the movement for social change and social engineering in the nation since the 1960s.

Suddenly, there is fear gripping the far-left political elite that they have gone too far, too quickly. They have had enormous success in achieving their objectives since the publication of the Gay Manifesto in 1972 declaring the LGBTQ+ intention of destroying the ‘family’ as the central pillar in the Judeo-Christian structure of the nation.

The judgment will have profound significance for the future of the Equality Commission and the interpretation of equality law in Britain.

The Idol of Equality

They have succeeded, probably beyond their wildest dreams, in persuading the nation that the supreme ethical values in society are ‘equality’ and ‘tolerance’ – that all ethical judgments should be taken at the bar of ‘equality’.

Hence, postmodernists have even succeeded in changing the legal definition of marriage by framing it as an issue of ‘equality’. This worshipping of equality is a recycling of Marxism, which falsely assumes that enforced equality will lead to justice and a better world. Jordan Peterson rightly calls postmodernism the “new skin that the old Marxism now inhabits”.¹

Marxism was totally discredited through the fiasco of Communism last century, but it didn’t disappear entirely - later reappearing under the guise of postmodernism, trying yet again to force upon the population the flagship lie of ‘equality’.

But forcing a Christian baker to declare his support for gay marriage may prove to be a step too far which could cause the whole of their false edifice of society to collapse. It is like pulling out a single brick from the base of the Tower of Babel, sending a shockwave right through its structure that brings the whole lot down!

Enough is Enough

The central tragedy of recent history over the past half-century is that neither Church leaders nor politicians have understood the philosophy of postmodernism, with its objectives of destroying Judeo-Christian civilisation. The great question facing us now is: will there be a great awakening of common sense among ordinary people in the general public before it is too late?

The central tragedy of recent history is that neither Church leaders nor politicians have understood that postmodernism seeks to destroy Judeo-Christian civilisation.

Will ordinary people arise and say, "Enough is Enough! We do not want to be driven by Big Brother political correctness. We cherish our freedom of speech and we will not let our children be educated in schools that brainwash them in the false values of ‘equality and tolerance’ and ‘political correctness’.”

Is it too late to reclaim the nation from the clutches of those who wish to destroy Western civilisation?

To the Church of Sardis

The Apostle John had a message for the Christians in Sardis who were facing persecution by the Roman Empire. He warned "You have a reputation for being alive, but you are dead. Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die” (Rev 3:1-2). The alternative was that their names would be blotted out of the Book of Life.

The warning signs are there today for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. If we do not wake up soon and challenge those who are driving the nation towards self-destruction, we and our children and grandchildren will perish in the forthcoming holocaust of social destruction.

That destruction has already begun, the evidence of which can be seen all around us, in the breakdown of the family and the consequent rise in crimes of violence, lawlessness and corruption. But this is only the beginning – unless we wake up!

References

1 Jordan B Peterson, Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism. Interview, The Epoch Times, 6 July 2017.

Call for a new law to protect religious freedom

The erosion of liberties experienced by Christians in Britain has rolled back the clock to the Dark Ages before Magna Carta.

Now Christian charity Barnabas Fund, generally focusing on the persecuted Church abroad, has launched a campaign (and petition) for Parliamentary protection of religious practice within the UK.

In Turn the Tide (Isaac Publishing), they spell out the urgent need for reclaiming religious freedom with a new law.

Liberally illustrated by a number of recent case studies demonstrating how far we have fallen down the slippery slope, the Barnabas book calls for an Act of Parliament designed to cover seven specific areas, including the freedom to interpret Scripture without Government interference.

Responding to the Casey Review

This is a response to the 2015 Casey Review set up to examine the proliferation of extremism but, in its 2016 report, effectively suggesting the implementation of a Government-approved version of Christianity.

The report defined extremism as views “at odds with those of mainstream society” – including traditional views of sexuality which amounted to “taking religion backwards”.

Barnabas Fund has launched a campaign for Parliamentary protection of religious practice in the UK.

Turn the Tide says: “The use of this pejorative term in a government report implies an attempt to impose a government-backed definition of ‘modern British’ Christianity.” They clearly also see the merit of doing the same with Islam. All of which is more akin to the sort of ‘Big Brother’ arrangement existing in China.

Barred from Office?

Related to this is the apparent re-introduction by stealth of the ‘Test Act’, which in past generations excluded non-conformists and others from certain professions.

And from the experience of the 2017 General Election, it seems that it already applies to Christians, who are effectively being barred from office because they do not subscribe to politically-correct dogma, particularly on sexual ethics. Some candidates were for this reason deemed by the media to be “unfit” for public office and Liberal-Democrat leader Tim Farron later felt forced to resign because he was unable to reconcile his faith with the views expected of his position.

Because of this, Barnabas insists that a new law must include “freedom from being required to affirm a particular worldview or set of beliefs in order to hold a public sector job or stand for election, work in professions such as teaching and law, or study at university.”

There have been a number of high-profile cases of people who have lost their jobs because they have dared to speak freely of their faith, or who have been taken to court because their consciences would not allow them to provide certain services, as in the case of Ashers Bakery, who refused to bake a cake with the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’.

We are witnessing the re-introduction by stealth of the ‘Test Act’, which in past generations excluded non-conformists from certain professions.

One of the most shocking cases was the recent suspension of Christian teacher Joshua Sutcliffe for calling a pupil a girl when she wished to be known as a boy. Quite apart from the obvious insanity of the ‘offence’ itself, the school had bizarrely conducted a survey of pupils’ religion which found that, out of 1,853 students, there were no – repeat no – Christians! And yet Mr Sutcliffe had been running a highly successful Bible Club at the school attended by over 100 pupils (bigger than most churches), which was subsequently shut down by the head.

You couldn’t make it up. I like the phrase I heard the other day: “We have become so open-minded that our brains are falling out.”

Recklessly Abandoning Freedom

As to the freedom we are so recklessly giving away, we are reminded that it started with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, Clause 1 of which states: “The English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.”

Though it took centuries to work through, with martyrs burnt at the stake in the process, religious restrictions were gradually lifted until we became the envy of the world, with the liberty enshrined so wonderfully within our shores in time exported around the globe.

In commending Turn the Tide and calling on people of faith to speak up, Democratic Unionist MP Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said:

I am alarmed at the gradual erosion of the religious liberties and values that we have sought to uphold in this country for centuries. We live in a society today where there is growing intolerance among the metropolitan liberal elites towards those of us who take a faith-based approach to life. They speak much of diversity and inclusion but promote laws that undermine the values dear to Christians and practise the exclusion of people whose religious views they find ‘unacceptable’.

For more information, and to sign the petition, visit OurReligiousFreedom.org.

Journalist under fire for asking awkward questions about a baby

As the great shaking of British society continues to turn our values upside-down, the Daily Mail has managed to seriously ruffle feathers with some elephant-in-the-room questions few have the guts to ask.

Richard Littlejohn, in last week’s Friday column,¹ has done us all a favour by tackling the ludicrous news that Olympic diver Tom Daley and his ‘husband’ are having a baby, focusing particularly on the fact that no mention is made of a mother (presumably the possessor of the womb featured in the much-publicised ultrasound scan) or who the actual father is.

The New Normal?

His great offence was no doubt in challenging fellow scribes to stop pretending this kind of relationship is the ‘new normal’. At any rate, he has succeeded in raising hackles to such an extent that major companies, including Honda, Morrison’s supermarket and the chemist chain Boots, withdrew their advertising.

Littlejohn also stated his belief “that children benefit most from being brought up by a man and a woman”.

I only hope the Mail stands by their writer, though I suspect editors may have their eyes blurred by pound signs, and thus be tempted to rein in one of the finest journalists among the fast-disappearing old school representing a press that was truly free to express its views.

The Truth Provokes Uproar

Most, if not all, of our treasured freedoms in this land are the product of our great Judeo-Christian heritage. So why are we (the Church) leaving it to secular journalists like Littlejohn and Melanie Phillips to do our ‘dirty’ work – i.e. taking the flak for challenging the accepted new norms of society.

Where is the Christian voice today? Where is the courage once displayed by Christian martyrs who willingly died for their faith?

Christians have historically been known for straight talking in addressing controversial social and other issues which was hardly surprising because they were following One who dared to accuse religious leaders of hypocrisy – in fact he compared them to “whitewashed tombs”, looking pristine on the surface but full of dead men’s bones (Matt 23:27).

The Gospel truth has always provoked uproar – often because it affects people’s pockets – as several instances in the Acts of the Apostles (the Bible’s account of the early Church) testify. Many businesses of the time were built on the backs of idolatry (i.e. worship of rival gods).

And in more recent times, William Wilberforce had to overcome decades of fierce opposition to his anti-slavery campaign because so much big money had depended on it.

People-Pleasing Church

Where is the Christian voice today? Where is the courage once displayed by Christian martyrs who willingly died for their faith? After all, these issues strike at the very heart of what the Gospel stands for – marriage, family, relationships (with God and one another).

But, for the most part, we remain silent and walk by on the other side of the road letting the ‘Good Samaritan’ tend to the wounds of society. Jesus, in his famous parable, deliberately chose a Samaritan (of mixed race and despised by Jews of the time) as the one who rescued the man beaten up by robbers.

With too few exceptions, many of us in the Church have become men-pleasers, not God-pleasers. If Jesus had been more concerned with appealing to men than in carrying out his Father’s will, he would not have died on the Cross and we would have been left with neither hope nor salvation.

For the most part, the Church remains silent and walks by on the other side of the road, letting ‘Good Samaritan’ journalists tend to the wounds of society.

Christian leaders who refuse to address these issues are clearly not crucified with Christ, dead to the world and refusing to conform to its standards (see Gal 2:20; Rom 12:2).

Dissent Not Tolerated

The furore sparked by Littlejohn’s piece was entirely predictable; and yet the very same (Daily Mail) issue carried a major feature exposing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s murky political past in meeting up with a Communist spy from behind the Iron Curtain. Was the metropolitan liberal elite much concerned about that? Evidently not.

Just as the frenzied backlash stirred by the Tom Daley article was kicking off (I was initially unaware of it as I was involved in a south London conference dedicated to evangelism), a Nigerian-born pastor was heaping praise on Britain’s great heritage,² mentioning in particular the Christian motivation of past businessmen like those who founded Cadbury’s, Guinness and, yes, Boots the chemist – the very firm that has now protested against critics of a non-Christian lifestyle!

Even some of our great football clubs, founded as part of the Church’s outreach to young people, are now in the hands of Middle Eastern nationals from countries which ban both Bibles and Christians, he lamented.

I notice that legendary Wimbledon champion Margaret Court is also in the dock for her stand on sexual ethics. Lesbian former champions Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova are campaigning to have a Melbourne arena re-named in protest. How pathetic!

It seems that with 50 years having now passed since both abortion and homosexuality were declared legal in the UK, they have now been officially ‘normalised’ and no dissent will be tolerated. Is this the fruit of a free society? Does no-one still cherish free speech?

50 years since both abortion and homosexuality were declared legal in the UK, they have now been officially ‘normalised’ and no dissent will be tolerated.

The Cross is Our Anchor

Well, all is not lost, if Sunday’s touching episode of Call the Midwife is anything to go by. One of the storylines followed a Nigerian sailor thrown off his ship because the crew believed he had smallpox, which was highly contagious.

Lonely and distraught, he prayed desperately as he hid in a drain, calling on Jesus for help, which duly came in the shape of the kind nuns who supply the dock area with midwives. It turned out that he actually had leprosy, which was treatable. And as he exulted in the answer to his prayers, one of the nuns handed him a Bible, saying: “In the cross is our anchor.”

Go and Sin No More

Although the letter of the law would have allowed Jesus to stone the woman caught in adultery, as her accusers pointed out, he refused to condemn her, but added: “Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11).

Christians who truly follow their Lord do not hate those who commit adultery (which includes all sex outside marriage), but neither can they affirm the practice. They would be betraying their faith if they did. Get used to it. Enough is enough.

References

1 Read the article here.

2 World Harvest Christian Centre, convened by Rev Wale Babatunde.

Continuing our series on the spiritual ‘manifestations’ of 1 Corinthians 12.

This article is part of a series. Click here to access the archive.

“Anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God” (1 Corinthians 14:2)

“Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good… to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12:7-10)

Speaking in tongues is recorded in the New Testament as occurring at the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) and on two other occasions (Acts 10:44-46 and Acts 19:1-6) as the early Church grew, but it is also listed as a spiritual manifestation by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. It not only was misunderstood by believers in the early Church but also has created division in the Church down through the ages.

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul does list an accompanying gift of ‘interpretation of tongues’ to go alongside, so that others who hear the manifestation of tongues can also be blessed – that is, they are both intended to be for the common good. But even the understanding of this has led to some confusion.

What is Speaking in Tongues?

The word glossa (Greek for language or tongue) appears in the Greek New Testament more than 50 times, most of which refer to known languages. It is also used when referring to the flames of fire shaped like ‘tongues’ (glossa) which appeared over the believers at Pentecost (Acts 2:3) and at least once in a metaphorical sense when referring to speech, “my tongue (glossa, speech) was glad (joyous)” (Acts 2:26).

In academia, the term ‘glossolalia’¹ is used to identify the phenomenon of speaking in an unknown language, or with language-like sounds, and is made up of the Greek glossa and lalia (speech). Often this is used in reference to the pagan practice of ‘ecstatic utterances’ - unintelligible, language-like sounds given while in a state of ecstasy.²

There is an incident in 1 Samuel 10:5-11 which many biblical scholars believe to be an early example of glossolalia being used in worship. Before he became king, Saul met a procession of prophets playing a variety of musical instruments and “prophesying”. We don’t know exactly what was happening but some think it is reasonable to interpret this as an example of ecstatic praise and worship.

The gift of tongues was misunderstood by early believers and has created division in the Church down through the ages.

Ecstasy is observed in many pagan religions around the world, in which it involves the generation of mystical insights by holy men, often by entering a trance. It is an ancient practice found among the shamans in the Sudan, the Shango cult of the West Coast of Africa, the Zor cult of Ethiopia, the Voodoo cult in Haiti and the Aborigines of South America and Australia. Some care should be taken in creating a distinction between pagan ecstatic utterances emanating from a trance and the biblical gift of speaking in tongues.

To be more specific, ‘xenoglossia’ (or ‘xenolalia’) is the ability to speak spontaneously and fluently in a language the speaker has never learned, but is nevertheless a known language. This interpretation is taken from Acts 2:8 when believers were enabled to speak in the languages of the many other nationalities present in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost. They “were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them…a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.”

Just Earthly Languages?

Many Christians who speak in tongues today believe that they are speaking a language that is not similar to any known earthly tongue but rather is a heavenly tongue. The usefulness of tongues as a personal prayer language is when we run out of human words to express our thoughts to God. This is what Paul refers to when he says “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans” (Rom 8:26). It may sound like gibberish to unbelievers, but God understands what we are trying to express.

The practice of speaking in tongues was heard frequently in the church at Corinth in the 1^st Century AD but has been experienced rarely down the ages, until the 19^th Century when it was accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) and then by Pentecostals in the early 20^th Century, followed by Charismatics as the century progressed, since when it is being much more widespread amongst Christians.

The usefulness of tongues as a personal prayer language is when we run out of human words to express our thoughts to God.

TO God – Not FROM God

It is important to understand that neither of these two manifestations, speaking in tongues and their interpretation, are God speaking to us, and so should not be confused with prophetic words. Speaking in tongues is a praise and prayer language addressed to God: “Anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God” (1 Cor 14:2).

This is the one manifestation of the Holy Spirit which involves us speaking to God, rather than God speaking to us. It enables us to praise God more than we can do in the flesh – it enables us to “utter mysteries by the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2), which are not understood by others unless they are interpreted by those who are enabled by the Spirit to do so.

Private or Public? Both!

Speaking in tongues can be very uplifting, especially when used in private devotions, as believers can speak as often as they wish and are free to choose whether they will pray or praise with their minds or with their spirits, i.e. in tongues: “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding” (1 Cor 14:15). This verse goes on: “I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding”. Singing in tongues is often very moving, adding greatly to any corporate act of worship as it becomes a shared experience.

In a public meeting Paul reminds us that this worship needs to be orderly, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" (verse 33). He recommends that only a few should share their worship in tongues at any one time and, in order that others can be edified and be able to say ‘Amen’ to these prayers to God, they should be interpreted or translated.

This is the one manifestation of the Holy Spirit which involves us speaking to God, rather than God speaking to us.

Worshippers should have control over how and when they speak in tongues as although it is a manifestation given as and when the Spirit wills, it is a phenomenon in which believers speak with God, without losing their own self-control and personhood.

Interpretation

The manifestation of interpretation of tongues is given so that the Body of Christ may not remain perplexed and unedified, but may be built up. A translation will enable the congregation to get the gist of what was expressed in the tongue, so that they too can share in the prayer or praise - without this it will be impossible to add a meaningful 'Amen!' (1 Cor 14:16). Neither tongues nor interpretation should ever disrupt a service, but should contribute to it.

Paul reminds the believers that “If the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?” (1 Cor 14:23). So interpretation is necessary when others are present. However, like tongues the interpretation will always be TO God – and never a message from him. It will enable all to praise God with their minds, which will enrich their own worship in the future.

Misuse – Ancient and Modern Errors

It is obvious from the letters that Paul wrote to the early churches, especially to those in Corinth (e.g. 1 Cor 11-14) that errors were coming into the Church on this subject and that it was causing division. Paul’s responsive teaching can help us from going astray.

James also reminds us of the danger of the physical organ the tongue, if uncontrolled:

…the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. (James 3:5-10)

Paul also reminds us that none of the gifts or manifestations are of any value unless they are manifested with love (1 Cor 13:1) – in fact, without love “I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal”.

Speaking in tongues enables us to praise God more than we can do in the flesh – it enables us to “utter mysteries by the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2).

False Teaching

In the early days of Pentecostalism, in the 1920s, a tradition developed that tongues should be followed by a 'message' which was regarded as the interpretation. This was carried over into the charismatic movement of the 1960s and sometimes resulted in words purporting to be ‘prophecy’ being accepted without being either tested for their origin or weighed, with unfortunate results. This was directly against Paul’s teaching that “anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God” (1 Cor 14:2) and his instruction that all prophecy must be weighed (1 Thess 5:21).

God does not need to disguise his words to us in a strange language. He can and does communicate directly with believers in words that all can understand. Tongues can help in expressing our innermost thoughts and praise to God, when we simply do not have words to express what is in our hearts.

As tongues is a manifestation, given as the Spirit wills, and not a permanent gift, many churches today allow it but do not encourage it in public worship. Cessationists, on the other hand, believe that all the gifts and manifestations were restricted to the New Testament period only.

Does Speaking in Tongues Come with Baptism?

Paul indicated that new believers would receive the Holy Spirit when they first believed (Acts 19:2). New Testament teaching is that whoever believes, repents and is baptised will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Repentance and conversion are essential pre-requisites for this.

However, the ability to speak in tongues, though given by the Spirit, is not an essential sign of receiving the Spirit. Though this is often taught in Pentecostal churches, it cannot be supported from the New Testament.

In the biblical record of the early Church, tongue-speaking was not seen as a common every-day occurrence, but rather a miraculous sign for special occasions (as at Pentecost) as the apostles preached the Gospel and the Church extended. Paul’s teaching was that the gift of tongues is not important for salvation although it can have some importance for edifying the individual and the Church. But even in this role he said that prophesying is much more important: “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Cor 14:4).

The ability to speak in tongues, though given by the Spirit, is not an essential sign of receiving the Spirit – neither is it a permanent gift, but a manifestation, given as the Spirit wills.

It would appear that Paul’s practice was to use tongues privately in his personal intercessions, but not in the assembly of believers (the church). He says, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church, I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than 10,000 words in a tongue” (1 Cor 14:18-19).

Mark’s version of the Great Commission (Mark 16:15-18) lists the signs that will accompany the baptism of those who believe, many of which are other gifts of the Holy Spirit that might enable witnessing to be more effective. Next week we will move on to looking at the last three of the manifestations from 1 Corinthians 12, focusing especially on how they are given for the common good.

References

1 'Glossology' is that department of Anthropology which has to do with the study and classification of languages and dialects.

2 Unlike the biblical gift of tongues, some research conducted by the Lutheran Medical Centre has demonstrated that glossolalia can be learned by following simple instructions or by imitating a semblance of words said by others. See Got Questions' page on glossolalia, here.