Are those who oppose the EU really backward-looking and bigoted?

Reversing Brexit is currently the chief General Election objective of all those people, especially Liberal Democrats, passionately committed to furthering the goal of European union.

This group includes many of our young people, particularly those in higher education, because of a deeply rooted but mistaken belief that the desire to preserve or (in Britain’s case) re-gain national sovereignty is somehow ‘racist’ and reactionary. They are taught that ‘nationalism’ leads to war, and being patriotic supposedly implies that one dislikes foreigners.

However sincerely held this belief may be, it should be rejected firmly by biblically informed and historically literate Christians.

The fallen human nature of ambitious and despotic rulers, obsessed by the selfish pursuit of wealth and power, has been the chief cause of war down the ages - not the existence of self-governing nation-states.

As for World Wars I and II, they, like so many armed conflicts of the modern era, were launched by militaristic dictatorships against mainly liberal democracies, whose peaceful exercise of their national sovereignty threatened nobody.

Reversing Brexit is the chief General Election objective of all those passionately committed to furthering the goal of European union.

Consequently, the real lesson of history is the very opposite of that drawn by the supporters of European integration. Since power corrupts because human beings are fallen creatures, it is essential that it remain dispersed, in an international system of ‘checks and balances’, rather than centralised and concentrated in a European Super-State.

Curbing Immigration: Right or Wrong

These ideas about national sovereignty and freedom are highly relevant to the controversial issue of immigration.

Politically correct ‘liberals’ always imply that the desire to restrict immigration is morally suspect, because it stems (supposedly) from a xenophobic, bigoted dislike of foreigners. Even when political pressures force them to acknowledge people’s legitimate concerns about the impacts of mass uncontrolled immigration on schools, hospitals, housing and transport, they do so reluctantly, always wanting to change the subject to the need for more government action to create jobs and improve public services.

Yet whilst it is obviously important to combat racists and welcome the positive contributions made by so many immigrants to our economies and societies, there is a strong and principled case for acknowledging the right of individual countries to control their own borders.

Border Control is Moral

In the first place, a country’s right to control its borders and restrict immigration is an essential component of its national sovereignty. If it is not allowed to determine who is or is not permitted to cross its frontiers and settle within them, it cannot maintain its distinctive national character or preserve its political independence.

Consequently, if we value an international system in which political power is de-centralised, we should recognise that mass uncontrolled migration threatens these institutional and cultural foundations, and should therefore be curbed.

There is a strong and principled case for acknowledging the right of individual countries to control their own borders.

A second and related argument is that liberal democracies cannot preserve their sovereignty, cultural unity and liberties if they open their doors to too many migrants whose cultural beliefs and values are fundamentally at variance with those of a free society. This truth is particularly relevant to the question of mass migration from the Muslim world, especially within the context of the global spread of radical Islam.

Freedom to Critique Islam

As the annual reports of international human rights monitoring organisations like Freedom House regularly reveal, most of the Islamic world is blighted by religious intolerance, sectarian violence and political tyranny. Women largely remain second-class citizens, freedom of thought and speech is non-existent or heavily restricted, and the rights of religious and ethnic minorities are generally trampled underfoot.

Some two million Christians, for example, have been driven out of their Middle East homelands over the past 20 years. But the greatest victims of Muslim violence and intolerance have been and continue to be other Muslims. According to a 2007 study by Harvard-trained scholar and Middle East expert Daniel Pipes, and Professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of Bremen:

…some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3%, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90% of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.¹

To highlight these facts, and the difficulties they pose for European countries struggling to control immigration from the Muslim world, is not to indulge in Islamophobia or to deny the fact that most Muslims currently living in Western countries live at peace with their neighbours and contribute to our societies. It is simply to draw attention to what is a genuine political and cultural problem widely acknowledged by liberal Muslims and human rights activists.

In March 2007, for example, a brave group of Muslim writers and intellectuals came together at a ‘Secular Muslim Summit’ in St Petersburg, Florida, USA, and issued a freedom manifesto called The St. Petersburg Declaration. This declared, amongst other things, that:

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called ‘Islamophobia’ in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights…We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid structures of orthodoxy…²

Against this background, is it really ‘racist’ or illiberal for Western governments to seek to limit the entry into their countries of large waves of migrants? These will inevitably include a minority of Muslims who advocate Sharia law, do not recognise freedom of conscience or speech, treat women as inferior beings, and feel no loyalty or attachment to their host communities.

Liberal democracies cannot preserve their liberties if they open their doors to too many migrants whose cultural beliefs and values are fundamentally at variance with those of a free society.

Protecting Personal Freedom

It remains, finally, to observe that peace, harmony and wealth creation depend primarily on the voluntary co-operation and enterprise of private individuals, organisations, and businesses - that is, on all the myriad relationships, activities, and institutions of civil society outside the State.

Therefore, a peaceful and harmonious world requires that the coercive power of government be kept to a minimum, and maximum scope be given to personal initiative, effort and creativity.

That may seem a utopian dream, but such a world is more likely to become a reality (at least in part) if its existing free societies retain (or re-gain) their sovereignty and independence, trading freely with each other and co-operating in defensive alliances and the pursuit of common solutions to regional and global problems.

In such an international environment of competing tax systems, centres of power, and legal jurisdictions, connected to each other by free trade, travel and communication, private individuals and independent institutions will always have more room to breathe, and greater freedom of action, than if they are imprisoned within a world of regional power blocs – or, worst of all, some monopolistic system of global government.

Note Well

The single most important historical fact about the 20th Century is that more people (170 million of them) died in internal repression under tyrannical rulers and governments, than in all its wars combined.³

Bearing this in mind, no true friend of liberty should have any hesitation in opposing the misguided idealism of those who believe that abolishing national sovereignty will lead to a better world.

References

1 Click here for full details.
2 Click here to read the full text of the Declaration.
3 For fuller details, see: R.J. Rummel, 1996. Death by Government. Transaction Publishers, USA. Also The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press, USA, 1999).

Examining the true spirit behind all the election promises.

The manifestoes are published! The day has arrived! No more leaks. No more fake news or half-truths. The real thing is now here. Each of the main parties has now published its policies for the next five years.

The politicians and their advisers have been poring over the texts, burning the midnight oil, arguing over each point and how to express it to the public. At last agreement has been reached and the results have been printed – there for all to see!

But how many voters will actually read the manifestoes? I decided to investigate what the politicians have actually said. I wanted to get past the big stuff on the NHS and migration; the economy and Brexit. I wanted to get the feel of what lies behind the policies. I wanted to read the small print – the things the politicians and their professional advisers have slipped in to the text – things they probably hope the public won’t really notice – the things they want to get away with undetected.

These are the things that reveal the true spirit behind the political promises that are being poured out this election time.

The Spirit of the Age

Upon closer inspection, all three main party manifestoes are pandering to the spirit of the age, seeking to endorse and extend radically anti-Christian values. Just look at some of the social issues that crop up across all three:-

• Extending sex education to all children
  
• Promoting LGBT+ lifestyles
  
• Tackling hate crime
  
• Enforcing and strengthening equalities law
  
• Promoting humanist values worldwide
  

Let’s look at what the parties have to say on these issues. The following are a few quotes:

Not-so-hidden agendas: Tim Farron makes it clear where the Lib Dems stand on Brexit.

Sex Education

The Conservative Party “will introduce comprehensive relationships and sex education in all primary and secondary schools” (p79).

Labour will “make age appropriate sex and relationship education a compulsory part of the curriculum” (p77). Labour will “ensure that all teachers receive initial and ongoing training on the issues students face and how to address them. We will ensure that the new guidance for relationships and sex education is LGBT inclusive” (p111).

The Liberal Democrats will “include in SRE teaching about sexual consent, LGBT+ relationships, and issues surrounding explicit images and content” (p29).

Promoting LGBT+ Lifestyles

The Labour Party says “A Labour Government will reform the Gender Recognition Act and The Equality Act 2010 to ensure they protect trans-people” (p111).

The Liberal Democrats will “strengthen legal rights and obligations for couples by introducing mixed-sex civil partnerships and extending rights to cohabiting couples” (p72). They will also “extend The Equality Act to all large companies with more than 250 employees, requiring them to monitor and publish data on gender, BAME, and LGBT+ employment levels and pay gaps” (p71).

Tackling Hate Crime

The Conservative Party will “push forward with our plan for tackling hate crime committed on the basis of religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity” (p44).

The Labour Party will “bring the law on LGBT hate crimes into line with hate crimes based on race and faith, by making them aggravated offences” (p111).

The Liberal Democrats will “tackle bullying in schools, including bullying on the basis of gender, sexuality, gender identity or gender expression” (p30).

Enforcing and Strengthening Equalities Law

Theresa May launches the Conservative manifesto, Thursday 18 May.

The Conservative Party will “strengthen the enforcement of equalities law – so that private landlords and businesses who deny people a service on the basis of ethnicity, religion or gender are properly investigated and prosecuted” (p56) (This is a direct threat to Christians).

“A Labour Government will enhance the powers and functions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, making it truly independent” (p108).

The Liberal Democrats will “extend protection of gender reassignment in Equality Law to explicitly cover gender identity and expression, and streamline and simplify The Gender Recognition Act 2004 to allow individuals to change their legal gender without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles” (p72).

Promoting Humanist Values Worldwide

The Conservative Party will “continue to champion British values around the globe: freedom, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law” (p38).

The Labour Party commits to “appoint dedicated global ambassadors for women’s rights, LGBT rights and religious freedom to fight discrimination and promote equality globally” (p118). Labour will also “continue to ensure a woman’s right to choose a safe, legal abortion – and we will work with the Assembly to extend that right to women in Northern Ireland” (p109).

British Values?

All of these policies are either expressly anti-biblical or more subtly so – dressed in language that seems to promise good for society. The protections of hate laws and equality legislation, for instance, are difficult to argue against from a Christian standpoint without being labelled hateful or bigoted. However, it is these catch-all policies that are being used to shut down freedom of conscience and speech for Christians, while enforcing the nation to not only accept but also endorse wrongdoing.

All of these policies are either expressly anti-biblical or more subtly so – dressed in language that seems to promise good for society.

Moreover, the Conservatives are the only ones who spell out the values that lie behind all their policy decisions: freedom, democracy, tolerance and the rule of law. They claim these to be British values - and to untrained ears they sound positive - but there has been no national debate upon what constitutes British values, where these concepts have come from and what they are being used to promote.

They certainly are not the values of our forefathers, which were the biblical values of truth, justice, righteousness, faithfulness, integrity and love. These are the values of our Judeo-Christian heritage that former generations embraced and became the foundations of our civilisation. Are we to allow them to be abandoned without even protest?

Aggressive Humanism

All the values underlying the policies put out by all three parties in their manifestoes have come from Darwin, Freud, Marx and other humanists. They are based fundamentally upon evolutionary/secular humanist beliefs, not on Judeo-Christian values. By what right do our politicians champion humanist values “around the globe”, calling them British?

This is the spirit of the age that is driving the political policies being promoted in Britain today – aggressive humanism. Continued unchecked, these policies will undoubtedly bring Christians into conflict with the law in the future. Our freedom of speech risks being curtailed by hate laws and soon we will not even be able to quote parts of the Bible in public worship services. No doubt the day may even come when our home-based Bible study groups will also be under threat.

All the party manifestoes are based fundamentally upon evolutionary/secular humanist beliefs.

We Need the Word of the Lord!

When similar things were happening in Israel the prophets thundered forth the word of God, but today our church leaders are silent. Why do we not hear the word of the Lord declared in our nation?

“This is what the Lord says, cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. He will be like a bush in the wastelands; he will not see prosperity when it comes…But blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him. He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream…It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit.” (Jer 17:5-8)

Will Christians no longer be able to stand for Parliament?

I am still recovering from the shock of realising that it seems no longer possible as a Christian to stand as a candidate for a major political party in Britain.

This appalling state of affairs became evident when Andrew Turner agreed to stand down as Isle of Wight MP at the upcoming election, because of his biblical views on homosexuality.

In a conversation with A-level students, he is reported to have said that “homosexuality is wrong” and “dangerous to society”.¹

It had already become clear that committed Christian Tim Farron was in an untenable position as Liberal Democrat leader for it is generally understood that ‘committed’ Christians are, by definition, disciples of Jesus’ teaching, which is based on the Tanach (the Jewish Bible, or what Christians call the Old Testament).

Jesus made this quite clear, saying: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” (Matt 5:17-19).

It seems no longer possible as a Christian to stand as a candidate for a major political party in Britain.

Andrew Turner, MP for the Isle of Wight. See Photo Credits.So it is hardly surprising that Mr Farron should be pressured by our politically correct media to state whether he viewed gay sex as sinful.² He sadly capitulated to the new morally acceptable line, in doing so denying Christ himself in the same way that the Apostle Peter denied knowing Jesus following his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Barred from Public Office?

Vicar’s daughter Theresa May, who claims to be guided by her faith, has also recently denied that gay sex is a sin.³ Yet the teaching that marriage is reserved only for sexual union between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Bible, and repeatedly emphasised in the New Testament. And St Paul makes clear, in relation to various sins including homosexuality, that approval is worse than practice (Rom 1:32) – which is also what Jesus indicates in the Scripture quoted above.

This means, according to Tim Dieppe of campaigning group Christian Concern, that Mr Farron and Mrs May are greater sinners in their approval of such practice than those they are defending.⁴

As for Labour, I doubt whether an orthodox/evangelical⁵ Christian stands any chance in the current climate of being accepted as a candidate, bearing in mind their sharp swing to the left.
I know that there are many Christians in Parliament right now, but it seems the door is being shut to further candidates – unless they remain secret believers!

All of which rather takes us back to the ‘dark ages’ when some Reformed Christians, such as the Quakers, were not only denied the right to practise certain professions, but also prevented from standing for Parliament.⁶

This takes us back to the ‘dark ages’ when Reformed Christians were denied the right to practise certain professions.

Fortunately, in the case of the Quakers, God turned what was meant for evil to good effect, not only through the introduction of chocolate to the world (Cadbury’s, Fry’s, Terry’s and Rowntree’s were all Quaker businesses), but also in providing useful employment, housing, a general boost to the economy and an influence in godly living that has echoed down the centuries.

God’s Design for Marriage

Marriage was part of God’s perfect plan from the very beginning (Gen 2:24) and is emphasised by St Paul in his letter to the Ephesians (Eph 5:22-33) when he compared it to the relationship between Christ and the Church.

As husband and wife, we reflect the greater purpose of God – the incurable romantic – who is seeking a bride for his Son; a perfectly adorned, beautiful reflection of ultimate goodness, joy and delight. Marriage is not an end in itself; it points to a greater reality that will find its consummation at a glorious future event referred to as the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:6-10).

Wives are called to submit to their husbands as they would to Christ, and husbands are asked to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, allowing himself to be mocked, scourged and crucified for her.

The early disciples were devoted to the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42). I repeat, denying Christian teaching on marriage is to deny Christ himself, who authenticated all Scripture through his answers to satan when tempted in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11).

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16f)

It is interesting that, only four verses earlier, we read that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted”.

The teaching that marriage is reserved only for sexual union between a man and a woman is fundamental to the Bible, and repeatedly emphasised in the New Testament.

Fortitude Demanded

Much fortitude is demanded of those who would follow Christ. The early Christians were thrown to the lions because they refused to worship Caesar; at the same time, their teaching was totally counter-cultural, shaming a world that indulged in promiscuous living, including homosexuality (see Rom 1:24-26).

Has the time perhaps come to support a party that is focused on Christian living and principles? After all, according to the Bible, Jesus is the one “by whom and for whom all things were made” (Col 1:16f). It’s all about him; the entire universe centres on Jesus – and yet he is not on the political agenda, or on the manifestos of the major parties! Why not? Something is seriously wrong in the state of Britain. And if we desire healing for our land, we believers need to repent and pray (2 Chron 7:14) – for the sake of the Gospel and for our children’s future.

Notes

1 The Daily Mail, 29 April 2017.

2 Ibid.

3 Interview with Andrew Marr on BBC TV, 30 April 2017.

4 Dieppe, T. Theresa May dodges question on hostility towards Christians. Christian Concern, 5 May 2017.

5 I.e. those who believe the Bible is the final authority on all matters of doctrine.

6 Quakers honoured Jesus’ command against using oaths (Matt 5:33-37), which Parliamentarians and lawyers were forced to do.

British politicians seek ‘way of peace’, but are back in appeasing mode.

British politicians are once again demonstrating the moral confusion that has seen them pass so many laws contradicting the biblical precepts upon which our civilisation was based. The latest example is the suggestion from an influential House of Lords committee that the UK Government recognise a new state of Palestine.

In a report titled The Middle East: Time for New Realism, published on Israel’s Independence Day,¹ the upper house’s International Relations Committee (chaired by former Conservative cabinet minister David Howell) called for the government to “give serious consideration to now recognising Palestine as a state, as the best way to show its determined attachment to the two-state solution”.

And the relevant paragraph was prefixed by the extraordinary statement that “the balance of power in the delivery of peace lies with Israel”.²

Yet the Palestinians have repeatedly made clear their commitment – not to the two-state solution so precious to Western leaders, but to a single-state solution with Israel driven out of the region altogether. PA president Mahmoud Abbas and his rivals in Gaza, Hamas, want all of it; that is why they refuse to recognise the Jewish state!³

The Palestinians have repeatedly made clear their commitment – not to the two-state solution, but to a single-state solution with Israel driven out of the region.

Surely – judging from their oft-repeated comments over the years – it is obvious to anyone with a semblance of elementary education (Lord Howell went to Eton) that these men do not want peace, but rather a jihad (holy war) against the ‘infidel’ seed of Abraham!

The ancient ruins of a synagogue at Capernaum undermine the Palestinian narrative about land.Promises of Peace

The report does not specify where the borders of this new state should be drawn, or even who should run it – Fatah, in charge of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) in the guise of the Palestinian Authority, or Hamas, who run a chaotic Gaza; factions which are constantly at loggerheads with each other. What kind of stable society will that produce?

The report also suggests that Britain work with Iran, despite current US policy, “to ensure the stability of the Iran nuclear deal”, adding: “That would be a way of peace in a region needing stability.”

Oh really! Such potential treachery has echoes of 1938, when Neville Chamberlain returned from Germany promising “peace in our time”. Have we learnt nothing in the past 80 years; that appeasement with dictators doesn’t work, for instance? In the case of the Munich meeting, it only further encouraged Hitler in his madness and hastened the death of some 50 million people!

Palestinian Pressure

Meanwhile the British Government has rightly refused persistent requests by the Palestinians to apologise for the Balfour Declaration which, 100 years ago this November, promised to do all in its power to enable Jews to re-settle their ancient homeland.

Such requests suggest that the Jews should never have been allowed to return to the region, which is in fact exactly what the Palestinians think. But instead of giving the Palestinians short shrift while fully backing Jewish aspirations, we keep kowtowing to international demands for endless peace talks which only ever seem to produce more conflict.

The British Government has rightly refused persistent requests by the Palestinians to apologise for the Balfour Declaration.

Israel withdrew from Gaza under international pressure, for example, in one of these so-called ‘land for peace’ deals. And what was the result? A continuous volley of rocket fire into Israeli territory.

Britain’s Historic Failures

We certainly have no need to apologise for the Balfour Declaration. But we do need to apologise for repeatedly going back on our word in subsequent years, as we betrayed the Jews again and again – firstly, by giving the bulk of the land we originally promised them to the Arabs (now Jordan) and then by persecuting them in various ways during Britain’s Mandate of the territory then known as Palestine, particularly by restricting Jewish immigration (to appease the Arabs) at a time when they could have done with a bolthole from Nazi threats.

Then, shamefully, we abstained in the 1947 UN vote to recognise the new state. And it was around this time (70 years ago this summer) that, quite disgracefully, we turned away Holocaust survivors from the port of Haifa, sending some of them back to Displaced Persons’ Camps in Germany, of all places.

For such treatment we should hang our heads in sorrow and shame. Among the dozens of refugee ships turned back in this way by the Royal Navy was the Exodus, with over 4,500 on board, mostly Holocaust survivors. Boarding the ship in international waters, the British killed three and wounded many more.

We have no need to apologise for the Balfour Declaration - but we do need to apologise for repeatedly going back on our word in subsequent years.

Leading the Way of Repentance

I’m glad to report that, two years ago, such sorrow and shame was expressed on our behalf by a group of some 100 British people, including Col Richard Kemp and Rev Alex Jacob.⁴ They travelled out to Israel for an event at Haifa and Atlit (location of one of the camps) where they asked forgiveness for our action from a similar sized group of Israelis, many of whom had suffered under the Mandate.

We do need to apologise – but not for the Balfour Declaration which, to quote journalist Melanie Phillips, was “the high-water mark of British decency towards the Jewish people. But it’s been downhill all the way…ever since”.⁵

Notes

1 Also on Independence Day, UNESCO (the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) voted – by 23 votes to 22 – to adopt a resolution denying Israeli claims to Jerusalem. Britain voted against it.

2 Recognise Palestine State says Lords. Christian Voice, 2 May 2017.

3 Hamas has unambiguously stated that “there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad”. And senior PA official Jibril Rajoub has emphasised that “all of Palestine, from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), it’s all occupied,” clearly implying that he does not accept Israel’s right to exist under any borders. Taken from Peace in Jerusalem by Charles Gardner, olivepresspublisher.com, pp143-149.

Reports that Hamas intends to remove the call for Israel’s destruction from a new policy document have sceptics suggesting it is merely a ploy to improve relations with Egypt and the Gulf states.

4 Richard Kemp is a retired British Army officer, best-selling author and fervent supporter of Israel. Alex Jacob is CEO of the Church’s Ministry among the Jewish people (CMJ).

5 Phillips, M. As I see it: The British Foreign Office remains true to type. Jerusalem Post, 27 April 2017.

Charles Gardner makes a passionate plea for Christians to be more active in their faith.

It’s time British Christians rose up to say, ‘enough is enough’.

As we stand at the crossroads with multiple challenges before us as a nation – politically, economically and spiritually – our greatest need is prayer. But in order to be aroused to the urgency of the times, we need leaders called “for such as time as this” – men and women who refuse to be intimidated by political correctness – conforming to the current worldview.

The Bible says: “…If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land” (2 Chron 7:14). This promise was given to Israel, a nation in a covenant relationship with God. But Britain has voluntarily affirmed its biblical heritage through the Coronation Oath and may expect to see God’s blessings if we are faithful to honour his word.

But where is the Church, and where are our leaders calling us to pray? By contrast, South African Christians responded to such a call by travelling hundreds of miles across the country to join an estimated 1.7 million people petitioning the God of Israel to intervene in their nation’s desperate problems with corruption at Government level spiraling out of control.¹

Where is the Church, and where are our leaders calling us to pray?

The immediate euphoria of the early post-apartheid days, when a rainbow nation swept clean of injustice basked in the new sunshine, are long gone. Instead of godliness taking root for the long-term, a spiritual vacuum was left in the corridors of power, and it is as if the demons of the past have returned with fellow spirits making the last state of the nation worse than the first, as in the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 12:43-45 where he explained that some cases could only be dealt with by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29).

Men of Courage

In a book written in the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London, Oxford vicar, Charlie Cleverly, likened the church to the position of Queen Esther when called to rescue the Jewish people from destruction in ancient Persia. The author calls for men of courage to rise up and lead us to the foot of the cross, to be prepared to suffer for our Lord as our forbears did when burnt at the stake for bringing us the Gospel in our own language.

A mini-version of Foxes Book of Martyrs, The Passion that Shapes Nations² also compares England to the spiritual dilemma described above by Matthew. We were swept clean by martyrs and others who lit a flame for the Gospel to be spread throughout the world, but we have since disowned our Godly heritage and are now seven times worse off than under the likes of Henry VIII.

Where is the courage that took Paul Hannington to Uganda where he died preaching the gospel; that took Hudson Taylor to China at great personal cost? Where are those who will stand up to godlessness and compromise in both church and state? We are approaching a crucial election, but God is apparently not on the agenda – politicians are afraid to mention God – a shameful situation for a nation granted the inestimable privilege of spreading the Gospel across the globe.

Preachers are being hounded and arrested for quoting the Bible.

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, a declared Christian, has long refused to be drawn on his view of gay sex, but has now finally succumbed to press intimidation by stating that it is not sinful. As Cleverly states in his book,

…the Church today, when faced with homosexuality, hardly dares to mention sin in this context. She is intimidated like Esther into silence.

The alarm bells are sounding. Preachers are being hounded and arrested for quoting the Bible: a student has been expelled from Sheffield University for his biblical views on sexuality.

It's Time

Appropriately, the South African prayer gathering was called It’s Time. Surely, it’s time to say, as the irrepressible farmer/evangelist Angus Buchan has said, ‘enough is enough’. As he addressed the teeming masses gathered on a former Springbok rugby player’s farm, he thundered to the young men present: “You will not sleep with anyone until your wedding night!” Cries of ‘Amen’ echoed across the veldt (I have watched videos sent by friends on the ground).

Need I say more? The great need of the hour is not political correctness or even political debate, but urgent, passionate prayer. God’s people, and especially church leaders, need to humble themselves and pray and seek the face of the Lord for the healing of our nation.

The destiny of nations is not in the hands of politicians but in the hands of the people of God who pray.

The Old Testament refers to the “men of Issachar who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32) and the prophet Hosea calls us to break up our unploughed ground – “for it is time to seek the Lord” (Hos 10:12).

As Charlie Cleverly puts it, Esther understood “that the destiny of nations is not in the hands of politicians but in the hands of the people of God who pray”. He adds: “I believe the Church is under threat as in the days of Esther and she needs to awaken to a coherent strategy.”

As John Knox called out, “Give me Scotland or I die”, where are those crying out in the wilderness: “Give me England or I die”?

References

¹ 'It's Time': South Africans hold largest prayer meeting in nation's history. Gotera, J, The Christian Post, 30 April 2017.

² Victor, an imprint of Kingsway.

Will Theresa May’s judgment about what is best for Britain prove correct?

The message of Easter/Passover is the solution to the corruption of our time.

At Easter/Passover every year, for the past four years I have looked anxiously at the bare branches of the beautiful ash tree in our garden to see if the Ash Dieback Disease has struck. Once again, this year the first signs of life are showing which confirm that it has escaped the dreaded disease.

I know it sounds silly, but I’ve actually prayed over that tree and asked the God of Creation to protect it from the corrupting disease that is borne on the wind in our region of the country. Each year I thank God for the new life that I see in this ancient tree that is part of the natural heritage of Britain. And each year I thank God for the little enactment of ‘Passover’ in my garden - that the disease has passed over my home.

In the same way as Jeremiah got a message from the almond tree that he saw near his home (Jer 1:11), I see this ash tree as representing the spiritual heritage of the nation, under attack from secular humanist forces that aim to spread corruption and to destroy its Judaeo-Christian foundations.

Jeremiah got a message of warning that the nation of Israel was facing grave danger from corruption within and from armed attack that would come from outside. Only God could save the nation from the onslaught of the mighty Babylonian army but God would not save a nation that was filled with unrighteousness and corruption – a nation that deliberately turned its back upon his word.

Corruption Within, Threats Without

In the same way, God is warning us today of the dangers we face from the growing threats of terrorism in the world and the very real dangers of World War III on the horizon. If God did not save his chosen people Israel because of the unrighteousness in the nation, what makes us think that we are safe?

If God did not save his chosen people Israel because of the unrighteousness in the nation, what makes us think that we are safe?

We too are a nation that has turned its back upon God and there is a vast amount of corruption within our borders – even the Bank of England has been (allegedly) implicated this week in the corruption in the banking industry and fixing the LIBOR interest rates.

Promise of Being Created Anew

But Easter has a message of good news and new life and hope for the worst of sinners, which includes people like you and me. We may not be guilty of fixing interest rates, but we are all in need of what only Jesus can do for us – renewing our corrupt human nature.

Paul said that if anyone is in Christ, he or she is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17) – our sins are forgiven and we actually become a new person. This is the message of Good Friday!

But that’s only part of the Easter message. In the world of nature, death and resurrection are built into the very DNA of Creation. Jesus said that a seed has to fall into the ground and actually die before it releases new life. This is why he died for us and then rose from the dead so that through his resurrection, the power to live a new life is actually given to us.

Message of Life, Hope and Joy!

Charles Gardner has written movingly in this issue of Prophecy Today UK about the death of PC Keith Palmer, who was killed by a terrorist while he was protecting our Parliament. It was right that the nation recognised the bravery of this man who died a hero. But it is even more important that as a nation we recognise the death of Jesus who died a Saviour and who is longing to bless us and our nation with new life.

Death and the hope of resurrection are built into the very DNA of Creation.

The message of Easter does not end with Good Friday. It is not a message of death, but an offer of new life. It is a message of hope and joy! Many Christians believe that Brexit offers an opportunity for Britain to be free from the morally and spiritually corrupting forces of the European Union. But in order to walk in true freedom – individually and corporately – we need the spiritual new life and power of the Risen Christ, which is the message of Easter Day. It is available to each of us – it is our joy for today and our hope for the future!

Free at last? Not quite!!

Free at last! – Well not quite!! What does it mean? What is the future for Britain? We know what Theresa May said on Brexit Day and we know what Donald Tusk said, but what is God saying to us? Are any of our politicians pausing to seek God’s direction at this crucial time in our history – the most challenging time since the end of World War II?

It is quite wrong to look at Brexit as a ‘divorce’ because it was never a ‘marriage’ that the British people entered willingly and joyfully. It was certainly not a marriage made in heaven! We were tricked into a civil partnership and we lost our virginity in Europe! We were led to the altar, bright-eyed and trusting. When we discovered the reality we felt betrayed. The great question is – can we recover from the experience, and what sort of nation will we be?

In 1973, we thought we were simply joining a trading alliance but we were tricked by our politicians. Edward Heath admitted that he knew right at the start that what was being presented to the British people was not true. He didn’t exactly say that it was a con trick, but he certainly admitted that he knew the end result was full social and political union.¹

British Ambassador to the EU Tim Barrow handing over Theresa May's letter formally triggering Article 50. See Photo Credits.We have the opportunity now to create something new – it’s like being born again! But biblically, being born again involves repentance for the past, and committing ourselves to follow a new path – to live a Godly life. Is there even the faintest possibility that this might happen on a national scale for Britain?

Wartime Faith

A lot of commentators are comparing this testing time to the difficult days of World War II when Britain stood alone against the might of the Nazi army. But Britain is a very different nation today! In May 1940 when France had capitulated and it looked as though the whole of our army was trapped on the continent, King George VI called the nation to prayer.

The nation responded with practically every able-bodied man and woman filling the churches and a quarter of a mile-long queue to get into Westminster Abbey. Britain was a nation of faith. We did not all live godly lives but we believed in God and when we fervently cried out for help he responded with the miracle of Dunkirk, when calm seas enabled the small boats to get to the beaches to rescue the soldiers and low cloud shielded them from air attack.

Brexit feels like the chance to be born again as a nation - but biblically, this involves repentance and dedication to God.

The whole nation recognised this as a miracle - it was even acknowledged as such by Prime Minister Winston Churchill in a speech to Parliament. The nation gave thanks to God for answered prayer. People in Britain knew that they were the only ones left in Europe still standing against the vast army and air force of Nazi Germany; but their confidence was in God.

A Christian Nation?

The difference back then, however, was that everyone in Britain had been taught the Bible from infancy. Every school started the day with an act of worship and every day included teaching from Scripture. Most people knew at least some Bible verses as the children were taught to learn Scripture by heart. After Dunkirk many favourite verses were memorised such as:

So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. (Isaiah 41:10)

My grandma had a ‘promise box’ which was like a honeycomb. Each day she took out one of the little folded pieces of paper with a text that gave her a word for the day. I am not saying that Britain was a Godly nation, but it was certainly a Bible-believing and God-fearing nation.

Today, more than half the nation doesn’t even believe in the existence of the God of the Bible and we have a large minority who worship other gods. It would not be possible for the Queen to call the nation to prayer today – who would they pray to? How can the nation know God when they have never heard the Gospel?

We have to face the plain fact that we are no longer a Christian nation.

A lot of commentators are comparing this testing time to the difficult days of World War II – but back then Britain was still a God-fearing nation.

Still Under Judgment

So what hope is there for the future? Will Brexit really bring a blessing? Will Brexit be good for Britain - was it really an answer to prayer?

If we believe Brexit was an answer to the prayers of the faithful remnant of committed Christians left in Britain, then we have to recognise the enormous responsibility that this faithful remnant now bears. The remnant recognised the true spiritual nature of the European Union and the satanic forces that were driving Europe towards an ever-increasing secular humanist and anti-God society.

But it is not enough to recognise the sinful nature of the EU and to rejoice that we are leaving it. We have to recognise the true spiritual state of our own nation. We are a nation under judgment, not least because we have passed many laws that are directly against the word of God - and we cannot blame all these on the EU. Brexit will not get us out of judgment: it is a time of grace, not deliverance.

We lost our way when we drifted from our constitutional position encapsulated in the Queen's Coronation Oath, which was made before God on 2 June 1953. Central to the Oath is the commitment to the utmost of our power to maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel. Now we have the opportunity to bring that Oath back into the centre of our recovery as a nation - more central than the economy or any other primary motivating principle.

In our democracy, we all share responsibility for the state of the nation because we all have a vote and we all have access to our politicians who are our representatives in Parliament. Most Christians don’t ever bother to look at what our politicians are discussing in Parliament and don’t even bother to pray for them! If we never bother to witness to our MPs and ensure that they know the word of God when they are considering issues of state, then how can we escape the judgment of God ourselves?

Brexit will not get us out of judgment: it is a time of grace, not deliverance.

A New Nation Under God?

If Britain is to be a new nation under God, much depends upon the faithful remnant of believers. Are we prepared to stand firm for the truth even when it’s not politically correct to declare it and we may get strong opposition? How much are we prepared to suffer for the Gospel?

We need to read again the letters to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation because we are facing similar situations today and we need to learn how to become ‘overcomers’.

The Christians in Laodicea, which was the richest town in the region, were lukewarm in their faith and had shut God out of their lives. Is this not the condition of many Christians in Britain? We are like the believers in Laodicea who said “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and I do not need a thing.” God’s response to them was “You are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev 3:17).

Many Christians in Britain are quite content with their lives and do little or nothing to share their faith with others. We are just like the Christians of Laodicea – and we don’t even realise it!

If we are among the Christians who voted for Brexit, we carry a responsibility to blow a trumpet of warning in the nation and to make our witness among fellow believers who do nothing about the spiritual state of their unbelieving neighbours. God will hold his Church responsible if Brexit fails to produce a new nation under God.

There are many signs of life in some of Britain’s churches so we must pray that the faithful remnant rises to the challenge and exercises a transforming influence in the nation.

References

1 See here and here.

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘What Are They Teaching the Children?’, edited by Lynda Rose (Wilberforce Publications, 2016).

This very pertinent and important question for our age is thoroughly explored in this collection of 12 essays written by a wide-ranging group of well-qualified contributors and skilfully put together by Lynda Rose, CEO of Voice for Justice UK, who have published this volume in conjunction with Wilberforce Publications.

Much Food for Thought

Lynda herself has written a key chapter, entitled Battle for the Soul of our Nation. Other topics covered include the role of parents as primary educators, the relevance of Christian assemblies and the issue of indoctrination, especially in the areas of sexual morality and scientism (the way in which scientific investigation has been turned into a belief system). The collection concludes with a personal reflection by Baroness Cox, called Holding the Line.

If you are concerned about the ways in which state education has become a vehicle for promoting secular and liberal beliefs about religion, morality and the family, often overriding the wishes and values of parents, then this is a book that will give you much food for thought.

Vital Resource

It is not a book to be dipped into lightly. Every chapter has been thoroughly researched and is well-documented with many endnotes. The overall contention of the book is that education today has become an ideological battleground.

There has been a revolution, a bloodless coup that has been consciously planned and instigated by secular activists committed to the overthrow of the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our educational system was built. Given this scenario, this book is a vital resource for teachers, parents and all those concerned with the wellbeing of our nation’s children.

What Are They Teaching the Children? (352 pages) is available from Amazon for £12.

Last week's Songs of Praise included 'worship' in a mosque.

I'm not usually shocked by the BBC but I watched Songs of Praise last Sunday and I was deeply offended to see them include so-called ‘worship’ in a mosque and the visit of children from a local primary school where the one Muslim boy in the village attended. The BBC's Muslim Head of Religious Programming is slowly changing all the Christian slots - now even Songs of Praise, the flagship of Christian broadcasting, is under attack.

Lord Reith’s original vision for the BBC was to broadcast TRUTH to the world. But now the Corporation has been taken over by a cabal of secular humanists who do not even know what truth is! I cannot help but feel that Trump was right to ban the BBC from the White House! They cannot be trusted to report accurately – they instead seem to be in the business of twisting the truth to achieve their own purposes.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the BBC is dedicating itself to undermining the Judaeo-Christian foundations of the nation and that they are even prepared to use Islam as a weapon in this process. We warmly commend the article below from Voice for Justice and ask you to sign their petition.

The Perfidy and Contempt of the BBC

In November last year, following complaints of unacceptable Muslim bias and the deliberate marginalization of Christianity by its Muslim Head of Religion and Ethics, Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC announced that it was axing both the role of Head and the department of religion, bringing all religious programming and coverage under the remit of former Labour MP James Purnell, the head of radio and education.

However, on February 25, the BBC quietly announced that it had appointed another Muslim, Fatima Salaria, as its new Head of Religious Programming.

It would seem therefore that, in clear disregard of their earlier statement, the BBC has not only resurrected this role, but appears to be operating a policy of Islamic prioritization, once again ignoring the pleas of all other religious groups in the UK for proportionate and fair representation.

Ms Salaria’s most notable achievement since joining the BBC in 2015 would appear to have been to commission the TV reality show Muslims like Us, described in the press as ‘Muslim Big Brother’. It may be remembered that in this programme, among the ten Muslim housemates - chosen to reflect the diverse views of Muslims in the UK - was included Abdul Haqq, a Muslim convert, former boxing champion, convicted fraudster … and member of the inner circle of jailed radical cleric Anjem Choudary. But it gets worse, because Mr Haqq reportedly not only supported banned terror group Al-Muhajiroun, but was arrested in 2014 in Dover, and later charged with plotting to go to Syria to fight with Islamic State after spreading terrorist material online.

His inclusion, put forward without comment as merely one view among many, can only have served to ‘normalise’ extremism, and is an affront to all - including moderate Muslims honestly striving to integrate into British culture.

Do we really want someone who commissions programmes like this as head of religion for the BBC? Do we trust her to give proportionate and fair representation to all religious groups? Do we trust the BBC? Or do we share the view of Professor Anthony Glees of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, who told The Mail: “If a BBC executive makes a programme that is notorious and then the BBC promotes them, it tells me that the BBC has in that area lost its moral compass.”

Ms Salaria is on record as saying the BBC needs to give greater voice to Muslims. It is a view that seems to have been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by dementedly ‘diverse’ Auntie, who seemingly takes every opportunity to undermine and pour derision on those who espouse the traditional Christian beliefs and values upon which our nation is founded. But exactly what voice does Ms Salaria class as authentically ‘Muslim’ and wish to be heard? After all, from the example of Abdul Haqq, she appears to have no problem supporting what the rest of us call extremism,

It goes without saying that there is religious diversity in this country, and all faiths should receive proportionate coverage. But Christianity remains the established faith of the UK and, despite declining church attendance, according to the 2011 census Christians still make up 59.5% of the population: a clear majority. Given therefore that Christianity is the main faith of this country, surely the head of religious programming should be Christian - or at the very least, as advocated by Conservative MP Bill Cash, the post should be rotated between the different faiths. Which should include Judaism, Hinduism and Sikkhism … as well as Islam.

As it is, this new appointment seems deliberately insulting both to Christians and to followers of other belief systems, and part of an orchestrated attempt to Islamise the UK. Such an attitude displays not just contempt, but is a betrayal of the principles and values on which the UK is founded. For these reasons VfJUK joins those who argue that the BBC is no longer fit for purpose. We call for urgent investigation into the Corporation’s governance and purpose, and for review of the licence fee.

Please sign our new petition to the Rt Hon Karen Bradley MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, calling for urgent investigation into the BBC's governance and leadership. Sign here.